■A' A 






Ml 






]/\.mMr 



w^wmrn 



MMfmfflmmZwL 



mm 



Mrtm 



mm? 
mam 



If" 



w 



tiU 



f\ j fsm 



mmmm 






Qmsm 



^mm^mmm 



mti 



^msffl^B 









LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

T# Jo......... 

6 




UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



kl 



ABSTRACT 



OF 



SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY 



JAMES PrBOYCE, 



Joseph Emerson Brown Professor of Systematic Theology, 



IN 



The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. 



Printed (not published) for the exclusive use of his pupils. __ 

/<\^COPYRlG^^ 

o FEB 17,1883/ 

LOUISVILLE, KY. : 

CHAS. T. DEARING. 

1882. 



3* 



Copyright 1882, 
By JAMES P. BOYCE. 



on 

£ 



CONTENTS. 



Lecture. Page. 

I. The Science of Theology, 4 

II. The Being of God, 12 

III. The Sources of our Knowledge of Theology. 48 

IV. Unity of God, 56 

V. The Spirituality of God, 64 

VI. Divine Attributes, 68 

VII. The Immutability of God, 76 

VIII. The Power of God, 88 

IX. The Knowledge of God, . . 94 

X. Holiness, Goodness, Love and Truth, 102 

XL Justice of God, no 

XII. The Will of God, 118 

XIII. The Decrees of God, 128 

XIV. The Trinity, 138 

XV. Personal Relations in Trinity, 150 

XVI. Outward Relations of the Trinity, ■-.... 170 

XVII. Creation, 182 

XVIII. Creation of Angels, 190 

XIX. Fallen Angels, 198 

XX. Creation of Man, 208 

XXL Providence, 236 

XXII. The Fall of Man, 250 

XXIII. Effects of Adam's Sin, 260 

XXIV. The Headship of Adam, 268 

XXV. Christ in the Old Testament, 280 

XXVI. The Person of Christ, 296 

XXVII. The Offices of Christ, . . . . • 316 

XXVIII. The Atonement of Christ, 320 

XXIX. Election 352 

XXX. Reprobation, 368 

XXXI. Outward and Effectual Calling, 380 

XXXII. Regeneration and Conversion, 388 

XXXIII. Repentance, 398 

XXXIV. Faith, 402 

XXXV. Justification, 412 

XXXVI. Adoption, • 422 

XXXVII. Sanctification, 428 

XXXVIII. Final Perseverance of the Saints, 444 

XXXIX. Death and the Soul's Immortality, 456 

XL. Christ's Second Coming, and the Resurrection, 472 

XLI. The Final Judgment, 482 

XLII. The Final States of the Righteous, and the Wicked, . . . .494 



PREFACE. 



This book has been printed by the author, not as a contribution to 
theological science, but simply to facilitate the instruction in his own 
classes. A necessity arose which required that it should be put to 
press when its printing had not been contemplated, and before the 
completion of the lectures. They have been revised for that purpose 
from week to week, as 'the class of this session has advanced, and 
many have been written for the first time. Various circumstances 
have prevented as thorough a revision as was anticipated when he 
consented to print them. It is on this account that he is unwilling 
to dispose of any copies to the general public. 

He has attempted carefully to give credit to all authors to whom 
he has been indebted, either for the substance or the form, of what 
here appears. But the loss of some of the originally written lectures 
and notes, and the consequent necessity which arose, to reproduce 
them as far as possible from copies written out by students of former 
classes from dictation, may have caused the omission of some credits. 



Abstract of Theology. 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE I. 



The Science of Theology. 

The word Theology means literally a discourse concerning God; 
but in analogy with other words, as geology, chronology and biology, 
it means the science which treats of God. 

It naturally concerns itself with such questions as these : Is there a 
God ; can He be known; what is His nature, and character; what are 
the relations He sustains to the universe; particularly to intelligent 
beings possessed of spiritual natures; and above all, as most important 
to us, to men; in what ways has He made Himself known; and especi- 
ally in what aspect does He reveal Himself to them as sinners. 

In connection with this last relation it treats, particularly, of man, 
as a creature of God, placed under the government of His moral law. 
It inquires into his original condition of innocence, and happiness; the 
manner in which he fell therefrom; and his present state of sinfulness, 
and condemnation; and inability for self rescue. 

It is thus led, also, to discuss the nature of the salvation which God 
has provided as seen in the person, and character of Jesus Christ, 
through whom it has come, and in the works of active, and passive 
obedience, by which he has wrought out reconciliation to God. 

In like manner, also, does it consider the nature, and work of the 
Holy Spirit, through whom man is led to accept the provisions of God's 
grace, and to attain through penitence, and faith unto a salvation in 
Christ, which consists, not in freedom from condemnation only, but 
also from the dominion and defilement of sin, and in attainment of the 
holiness, and happiness of children of the Heavenly Father. 



5 Abstract of Theology. 

It follows man also beyond the death of the body, and makes known 
the future state of both the righteous, and the wicked, as well before, 
as after the resurrection of the body, together with the final judgment 
of both these classes, and the Heaven, and Hell which shall be their 
respective abodes forever. 

Finally it teaches the great end which God is accomplishing through 
all His works, in the manifestation to all His creatures of His own 
glory, as seen in its twofold aspect of mercy, and justice, in His deal- 
ings with this fallen race of man. 

The term "theology"' is applied, not only to the science itself, but 
to any treatise on that science. This is true, not only of a discourse 
upon the one true God, but even of one upon the many false gods of 
the Heathen. It is also true, though it be not a scientific discussion, 
but simply one in narrative., or poetic form, and descriptive of action, 
rather than of character, and nature. Thus "Orpheus and Homer were 
called theologians among the Greeks, because their poems treated of 
the nature of the Gods". (Charles Hodge Sys. Theol. Vol 1. p. 19.) 
Even the poems of Ossian, though probably written in England with- 
in the past century, is a book of theology. Mythology is not less 
theology because it treats of false gods, and in works of the imagi- 
nation. 

The term "theology" is, however, especially appliable to learned, and 
scientific works upon God, or the Gods. Of these numbers are to be 
found connected with Heathenism. Such are the Vedas, the most an- 
cient of the sacred books of the Hindoos. Such is the Zendavesta of the 
ancient Persians. The Edda which sets forth the Scandinavian my- 
thology, consists of poetic songs, and also of dialogues on the origin 
of the, gods, on the creation of the world, and other like topics. [See 
Gardner's Faiths of the World, Vol. 1, p. 795]. 

The most valuable discussions among the Heathen, however, are to 
be found in the works of the Greek philosophers, the greater part of 
which, when not directly upon the nature of the Gods, involved 
questions as to the origin of the world, and the presence therein of a 
Divine controlling Spirit, as well as upon the nature of the soul, and 
its duties, and its immortality. Of their works many have eome 
down to us in fragments only, while a large portion of what they taught 
is found only in the records, and reports made by others among them- 
selves; but there are also many complete works which profess to have 
been written by the authors of these speculations. Confessedly the most 



Abstract of Theology. 6 

important of these Greek writings are Xenophon's Memorabilia of So- 
crates, and the works of Plato, and Aristotle. But from the beginning of 
Grecian philosophy in Thales and Pythagoras to its culmination in So- 
crates, Plato, and Aristotle, was not quite two hundred years, while its 
whole history covers a period of six centuries and a half before, and five 
centuries after the coming of Christ. No human estimate can be 
placed upon the value of these contributions, nor upon the influence 
they have exerted even over those possessed of the Christian 
Revelation. 

The Latin writers also produced several works of a theological 
character, preeminent among which is that of Cicero "Concerning the 
nature of the Gods." 

Theology is, also, frequently used for the set of opinions exhibited by 
a writer, or class of writers, in any one, or more productions. Thus we 
have the theology of Calvin, or of Arminius, or of Baxter, that of the 
Reformation, Princeton theology, and New England theology. Men 
also speak of the theology of the^ Old, or of the New Testament, of 
the theology of the Psalms, of the various Evangelists, especially of 
John, and of Petrine, and Pauline theology. 

Theology is defined as a science. It is eminently worthy of that 
name. It lacks nothing that constitutes a science. It is concerned in 
the investigation of facts. It inquires into their existence, their 
relations to each other, their systematic arrangement, the laws which 
govern them, and the great principles which are the basis of their 
existence, and relations 

As in other sciences, there is much that is absolutely known, much 
beyond this that is little questioned, much that is still matter of spec- 
ulation, and much, as to which there is decided difference of opinion. 
New facts are constantly developing in this science, as in others, which 
enable us to verify the facts, and principles heretofore accepted, when 
correct, and to modify them when erroneous. New theories present 
themselves for the better explanation of facts already known, and are 
tested by these, and others subsequently discovered, and are received, 
or rejected, according to their ascertained correctness. The knowledge 
of the past is built upon for progression towards the future. 

The discovery of the facts is conducted, as in all other sciences, by 
study of what the field affords. Geology examines the earth, and 
derives its facts from the structure of that earth. Astronomy inves- 
tigates the stars. Theology, likewise, studies the sources of its knowl- 



j Abstract of Theology. 

edge. Each science seeks to arrive at the truth. The votaries of each 
are certain that it is to be found in their fields, either partially, or com- 
pletely. The perfect attainment of all facts prepares for the exactness 
of scientific knowledge. The absence of any must make the knowl- 
edge incomplete. The proper generalization of all is essential in 
this, as in all other kinds of science. A full knowledge of all the 
facts, and a perfect generalization of them, will constitute theology an 
exact science. 

Theology is also as sensitive to the absence of facts as is any other 
science. The astronomer finds that his calculations, based upon cor- 
rect theories, are not exactly verified, and at once suspects the presence 
of some disturbing body as the cause of this variation. So, also, in 
theology. The omission of a single fact, however small, must affect 
the whole universe of doctrine. The common mind does not perceive 
this, and, hence, is not prepared to value the discovery of the new 
fact. But the theologian finds in the new and more exact adjustment, 
thus made possible, the proof of the truth of his whole system, and, 
therefore, prizes it, even sometimes beyond what he ought. 

Regarded as a science, theology may be classified in various forms. 

1. According to the method of revelation ; into natural and super- 
natural theology. 

Natural theology embraces what man may attain by the study of 
God in Nature. This extends not only to what is beheld of Him in 
the Heavens and the Earth, but also in the intellectual, and spiritual 
nature of man himself. 

Supernatural theology is that derived from such special information 
as God has given by what we commonly call Revelation. 

2. According to the purpose which it contemplates ; into System- 
atic theology, also called Didactic, or Dogmatic ; Polemic or Contro- 
versial; and Practical or Experimental. 

3. According to the main religious idea associated with it; as 
Pantheistic Theology, Deistic Theology, Rationalistic Theology, &c. 

4. According to the name of its founder, or the race in which it 
originated, or flourishes, as Christian Theology, Judaistic Theology, 
Mohammedan Theology, &c. 

5. According to the sources from which it is derived; into Bibli- 
cal Theology, Christian Dogmatic Theology, and Ecclesiastical Dog- 
matics. 



Abstract of Theology. 3 

Biblical theology consists in the facts of the Bible, harmonized by 
scriptural comparison, generalized by scriptural theories, crystalized 
into scriptural doctrines, and so systematized as to show the system of 
truth taught, to the full extent that it is a system, and no farther. As 
in Botany, one gathers all the plants of the world, and arranges them 
without attempting to introduce new plants, even to fill up manifest 
gaps, so Biblical theology, duly presented, shows scriptural truth 
in all the perfection, and in all the imperfection which God has 
given it. 

True Biblical Theology should- recognize the inspired source whence 
come its teachings. But, as now technically used, Biblical Theology 
refers to the statement, and development of Doctrine by the various 
Biblical writers, or in other words to the development of Jewish re- 
ligious thought, without assuming, or denying the inspiration of the 
Bible. 

Christian Dogmatics adds to Biblical theology such philosophical 
explanations, as seem necessary to make the system ot truth complete, or 
to enable men better to understand the facts. These are not neces- 
sarily non scriptural, as they should never be unscriptural. They may 
be as much a part of Scripture, as the theory of gravitation is a part of 
the revelation of nature. They are applied to explain phenomena. So 
far as able to do so, as to most of the facts, in a way not inconsistent 
with any of them, they prove their probable, even in some cases, their 
certain correctness. A failure to explain all does not deprive them of 
confidence. But the direct opposition of even one fact, seen to be in- 
consistent with the theory, is sufficient to show that it is incorrect. 

Christian Dogmatics differs from Ecclesiastical Dogmatics in two 
particulars. 

(1.) The latter are the authoritative statements of doctrine, put 
forth by some body of Christians claiming to be a church. They are 
found in creeds, symbols, decrees, resolutions, and apologies. They 
may also appear in authoritative discussions of its creeds, or systems 
of doctrine. 

(2.) Ecclesiastical Dogmatics should treat only of ascertained facts 
which may be laid down as a basis of union, and agreement. It ought 
not to touch merely speculative questions. 

Christian Dogmatics treats of speculative, as well as ascertained 
questions. 

It thus appears that a perfect system of theology will combine all of 
these classes. It would be based upon Biblical Dogmatics, which shall 



Abstract of Theology. 

Lave so collected, and systematized, all the teachings of a full revelation 
as to be concurrent with the facts, and doctrines of Christian Dogmatics. 

The Ecclesiastical Dogmatics will have gone no farther than fully 
authorized by the Word of God, and therefore concurs with Biblical 
Dogmatics, while the fulness of revelation will have left to Christian 
Dogmatics no speculative questions; but in all its discussions it will 
have been able to attain unto full knowledge of the facts, and ascer- 
tainment of all the doctrines. 

But this concurrence can only be when Theology has been reduced 
to an exact science. This can never be looked for in this life. 

The causes of doctrinal variation will therefore be apparent. 

If men came to the study of Biblical Theology, with minds entirely 
unprejudiced, capable of examining its truths with the same mental 
powers, and with the same amount of study, all would concur as to its 
facts, and doctrines. But this cannot be done. Mental capacities 
vary. All men have their prejudices. All have not equal time for 
study, and all use not equally the time that they have. Thus variety 
is certain even in studying Biblical Theology. 

The same causes increase this in Christian Dogmatics, because here 
the human element enters more largely than in the Biblical; while 
reverence for antiquity, opposition to change, and the influence of the 
learned of the past and the present, prevent the alteration of Ecclesi- 
astical creeds, which underlie Ecclesiastical Dogmatics, and thus lead 
men constantly to continuance in error, and refusal to accept truth. 

These facts show with what spirit we should study Theology. 

1. With reverence for truth, and especially for the truth taught 
in the word of God. * 

2. With earnest prayer for divine help. 

3. With careful searching of heart against prejudice. 

4. With timidity, as to the reception, and propagation of new doc- 
trines. 

5. But with a spirit willing, and anxious to examine, and to ac- 
cept whatever we may be convinced is true. 

6. With that teachable humility, which, knowing that God has 
not taught us, in His Word, all the truth that exists, not even all the 
truth on many a single point, accepts with implicit faith all that He 
has taught, and awaits His own time for that more full revelation 
which shall remove all our present perplexities. 



Abstract of Theology. ^q 

The advantages of studying theology systematically are several. 

1. We thus ascertain all that nature and the Scriptures teach 
on each point. 

2. We compare all these teachings one with another, and are 
enabled to define their mutual limitations. 

3. We are brought, face to face, with the fact that our know- 
ledge is bounded by God's Revelation, and are led to acknowledge 
it as its source. 

4. We are consequently warned not to omit any of the truth, 
ascertained irom any source, nor to add to it anything, not properly 
embraced therein. A departure from this rule will lead into inevit- 
able error. 

5. The harmony, and consistency, which will be found in all 
God's teachings, from whatever source we may draw them, will be- 
come conclusive proof of the divine origin of revelation. This will 
result, not only from a comparison of what Reason, and Nature 
teaches, with the revelations of God's Word, but from one of the 
several books of the Bible with each other, and especially of the body 
of the Old Testament, as one book, with that of the New Testament, 
as another. 

6. We are thus led to value each of the doctrines of the word of 
God. Each is true. Each has been revealed that it might be believed. 
We cannot therefore, omit any one, because of its forbidding aspect, 
or its seeming unimportance, or its mysterious nature, or its demand 
for great personal sacrifice, or its humiliating assertions, or require- 
ments, or the free terms upon which it assures of life and salva- 
tion. 



Abstract of Theology. 12 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE II. 



The Being of God. 

The fundamental doctrine of Theology is that there is a God; for, 
if this is not true, there can be no Science of God. 

The first duty of Theology, therefore, is to set forth the reasons men 
have for believing that such a Being exists, and is a true object of de- 
pendence, and worship, 

I. God can be sufficiently known. 

It is objected, however, to any science of God, that, if there is a 
God, He cannot be known, and, therefore, cannot be a true object of 
worship. 

If this means that we cannot know the essential nature of God, then 
upon this principle we can know nothing, for we do not know the es- 
sential nature of anything. We know not our own essence. We can- 
not ascertain that of any existence, not even of the smallest atom of 
matter. We can only judge from the qualities anything is perceived 
to possess, or by its manifestations, what it must be. So as to God; 
we can find out what He is, in the different ways in which He has 
manifested Himself in ourselves, and in the World around us. 

Is it meant that we cannot know Him, because His nature may be 
Or must be, so different from ours? But we do know many things 
which differ greatly in nature from what we are. Our bodies are ma- 
terial, but it is our mind which knows them; and mind, and matter 
are believed to be essentially diverse. We know also our mode of 



13 Abstract of Theology. 

existence, and that of other objects in time, and space, but these modes 
of existence are essentially different from the things which exist in 
them. 

Besides, until we know what God is, we cannot be sure that He is 
in all respects different from ourselves. If there be any points of 
similarity, we can known Him so far as these exist; and, if it be true 
that we have been made, in any respect, in the likeness, and image of 
God, our knowledge of God may approach at least to such complete- 
ness as to enable us to recognize His more manifest perfections, and 
to perceive that because of these He ought to be reverenced, and wor- 
shipped. 

Guided by the analogy of our own natures we expect to find in Him 
a personal, conscious, intelligent, and moral being, and this expecta- 
tion is confirmed by the manifestations of His presence, and workings 
in the universe. 

This analogy alone will not tell everything about God. Nor does 
it limit the knowledge we are able to acquire. It has led some to be- 
lieve that God has a material body as has man. That He has not, is 
to be ascertained from other facts. But it so far teaches us, that we 
know that God must either be a spirit, such as we are, or that He 
must have a higher nature, to which belong all those attributes of 
spirit which constitute conscious personality, and intelligent purpose. 

Does it mean that we cannot know Him because we cannot come in 
contact with Him through the senses, as we do with our fellow men, 
and cannot learn His nature through His conduct, and action, as we 
do theirs? But it is not alone through personal contact with our fel- 
lows that we know that they are, and what they are. We judge of this 
also, by their works, which we may examine, though we have never 
seen, or known them personally. In like manner, through our senses, 
are we brought into contact with God, Who, though not material, is 
an artificer in material things, and has displayed before us, in the 
universe around, the evidences of His wisdom, power, and goodness. 
Surely, so great a structure as this, which manifests a grasp of thought, 
and a power of performance, so wonderfully beyond that of any human 
being, and a minuteness of detail, and execution, and finish, the limita- 
tions of which defy the most powerful microscopical examination, de- 
mands that we should seek to know its author, and that, until known, 
we should at least recognize the evidence that He is immeasurably 
greater, and wiser, than ourselves. 

Is it meant, that the outward phenomena of the universe cannot 
give such mental, and spiritual knowledge of God, as is essential to 



Abstract of Theology. 14 

our mental, and spiritual relations to Him? This is true; but we find 
that knowledge conveyed to us by our own spiritual, and mental 
phenomena. We find in ourselves consciousness of existence, of 
thought, and of purpose, and from the manner in which these operate 
in us, we know the nature of their operation in any being of intelli- 
gence. We find that the mind has its laws, no less binding and ef- 
fective, no less regular and permanent, than those of matter. We 
must ascribe these to its author no less than those of matter to its 
creator. In their study, we perceive the nature of mind, and spirit, 
not by learning the essence, but as in matter by studying the pheno- 
mena. That nature we ascribe to the Divine Mind, and Spirit, which 
must, at least, possess a nature equal to this. The differences of men- 
tal, and spiritual capacities in men assure us that these exist in de- 
grees of greater, or less. Hence we assign them to God in the highest 
degree; because as their author He must Himself be greater than all 
His mental and spiritual creations. 

But, in addition to this, we have a peculiar source of infor- 
mation. We find our minds capable of intuitive knowledge. Some 
abstract facts need only to be understood, and the conviction that they 
are true immediately follows. That "the whole is greater than any 
one of its parts" is perceived to be true as soon as understood. So 
also of the statement that "a thing cannot be, and not be, at the 
same time." Whence is this knowledge ? We say that the mind is so 
constituted that it cannot believe otherwise. Who has so constituted 
it ? It must proceed from some one upon whose veracity we rely, 
when we accept what our nature teaches. But, if from any one, then 
there is a creating mind, and that mind operates directly upon mind 
without the intervention of matter, and thus teaches us truth. When, 
then, we find other convictions of like nature relative to our dependence 
upon a higher being, our obligations of duty to Him, our sense of right, 
and wrong, and the duty to do the right, and not to do the wrong, 
we cannot avoid believing that these intuitions come from the same 
source, and are His instructions to us as to our moral relations, and 
duties to Him. 

But it is objected that in all these ways we only attain partial 
knowledge of God. This is readily admitted. But partial knowledge 
is actual knowledge as far as it goes. We have complete knowledge 
of nothing. All our knowledge is partial. The child only partially 
knows its parent. The subject only partially knows his sovereign. 
Yet enough is known for the recognition of dependence, and of the 



15 Abstract of Theology. 

4 

duties of obedience, and love. So, also, with the Heavenly Father, 
the King of Kings. The questions of Zophar have been, with full 
reverence for God, and earnest worship for such an one as it is be- 
lieved that He must be, the language of the pious of all ages. "Canst 
thou by searching find out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty 
to perfection? It is as high as Heaven; what canst thou do? deeper 
than Hell; what canst thou know." Job 11:7.8. 

But it is further objected that, if there is a God, He must be the 
Absolute, the Infinite, the Unconditioned, and, therefore, cannot be 
an object of comprehension to us. whose nature is finite, and whose 
mode of existence is only relative, finite, and conditioned. 

But the objection itself presents its own refutation. How do we 
know that God must be such, if there is a God? In whatever way 
we know this, we know at least that much of God that He must be 
the Absolute, the Infinite, the Unconditioned. Even before we are 
supposed to know that He exists, therefore, we know this much of the 
nature which must be His, and upon the first evidence of His exist- 
ence have the right to attribute to Him all that is therein contained. 
The characteristics, thus ascribed to Him, reveal Him, therefore, to 
us, as an infinite existence, without other limitations than are found 
in His own nature, or essence, who, as Absolute, cannot be dependent, 
but must be the source, and Sovereign of all else; and, as the Uncon- 
conditioned, cannot be subject to time, and space, and matter; and 
must exist, therefore, without possibility of growth, or increase, and 
without the succession of periods, such as yesterday, to-day, and to-mor- 
row, and without those measures of space, and location, which belong to 
matter. The God, therefore, Who is thus proclaimed to be unknow- 
able is at least known as a self-existent Spirit, infinite, eternal, and 
unchangeable in all the perfections that belong to His nature. Let 
but the least evidence appear that there is a God, and at once this 
nature may be ascribed to Him. 

II. ALMOST UNIVERSAL BELIEF IN GOD; ITS SOURCES. 

Belief in the existence of God has been almost universal among 
men. The same ideal of perfection has not everywhere been found. 
Some have gone no farther than to be moved by the sense of the 
supernatural, and to believe in a power to which they are subject, and 
upon which they depend. But, at least, this much is to be found in 
the lowest forms of fetish worshippers. Others have multiplied the 



Abstract of Theology. lg 

numbers, and forms, of those towards whom they have felt this sense of 
dependence, and have accepted the existence of many gods. Yet, 
among these, the traces of the One God have not entirely disappeared, 
for they have referred the gods themselves to one originating source. 
Some, following too closely the analogy of man's nature, have believed 
God to be the animating soul of the world. The highest spiritual 
conception of God has been found only in those nations which have 
been recipients of His Revelation. But the most ancient records show 
that, in the earliest times, the knowledge possessed by all w T as com- 
paratively simple, and pure. 

So universal has been this belief, that but very few of the millions 
of the race in all its ages have denied the existence of God. It has 
been questioned whether these few have been deceived as to their 
actual convictions, or have been insincere in their avowal of Atheism; 
because it has seemed so impossible for man not to believe in a God. 
A greater number still have been skeptical ; sometimes led by wishes 
born of depravity, and sin, but, also, sometimes misled by philosoph- 
ical speculations, and apparently earnestly desirous to know the truth. 

But the firm conviction of mankind in general that this belief is 
unavoidable in any man in his normal condition, and that its absence 
is due to some crushing out, or erasure of his necessary moral capa- 
bilities, is seen, not only in the general horror which men have for 
those who profess Atheism, but in the denial to such men of the right 
to testify in the courts of justice. 

1. This almost universal concurrence of men ought to be ascribed 
primarily to Tradition. It has been handed down, from parent to 
child, throughout all the generations of the past. Some theologians 
of the present day have been unwilling to recognize this fact. Some 
have sought the source of this general prevalence in the idea of God 
as innate in the mind. Others have simply rested upon other argu- 
ments for God's -existence, and taken the universal consent of mankind 
as evidence that this is not an idea unnatural to them, since they have 
yielded ready assent to the proofs of it commonly given. But a re- 
cognition of the traditional teaching will not weaken the argument. 
Even if it does, it is a fact which must be acknowledged. 

In favour of this as the primary source of this general belief it may 
be said, 

(1.) That this is the natural manner in which every child among 
us learns about God. Its own questionings, or its parent's convictions of 



17 Abstract of Theology. 

the importance of this knowledge, cause it to be imparted at an early 
period, and by such direct teaching. 

(2.) Information obtained by travelers, and especially by Christian 
missionaries, teach that our own customs agree with those of heathen 
nations as they also do with those of Christendom in general. 

(3.) This accounts for the fact, that, while the belief has varied at 
different times, and places, it is held in the same form by almost 
every one within a single nation at a single period. 

(4.) The uniformity, too, in which it has continued among any 
one people for many generations, is also proof of this truth. 

(5.) The general existence of it in a purer form, the nearer we ap- 
proach the origin of the race, shows that this was the primeval belief 
of man, and has thence been handed down from fatlier to son, until it 
has reached our own age, and ourselves. 

(6.) This accounts also for the fact that, when it has been corrupted, 
it has continued in that corrupted form until some new mental, or spiri- 
tual force has arisen to introduce change, and to give new form to 
the belief for some time to come. 

The belief thus dependent on this traditional teaching is of great 
value as proof of the truth of this doctrine. 

(1.) Its general prevalence shows that this doctrine is suitable to 
all mankind. It is one that, though worthy of the wisest thought, is 
not dependent upon philosophical conceptions, or abstract, or logical 
reasoning, for its acceptance. The most ignorant of men have been 
able to grasp it. It is like that teaching of the Great Master, whom 
"the common people heard gladly." There has been something in it, 
or connected with it, that has made all men believe it. What that is, 
will be hereafter shown. Bat the fact that this simple teaching, from 
father to son, throughout all the ages, has been enough to make it 
dwell as a powerful, and controlling influence in the hearts of the 
masses of mankind, is a strong proof not only of its truth, but also that 
it has come from God, whose universal gifts are of this simple nature, 
common to all. 

2. That it has come down through all the ages, shows that it has 
come in contact with all the best thoughts of the wisest of mankind. 
That, in its study, the wisest, and best, even among the heathen, have 
approached, in their noblest conceptions of it, to what we believe 
we have received through the revelation of God, affords a convincing 
argument, not only in favour of this noblest conception, but of the 



Abstract of Theology. 18 

Divine Word which reveals it. The least that can be said is, that, 
after being subjected to every variety of thought, and philosophical 
speculation, this traditional belief has maintained itself as truth, and 
convincingly withstood every objection that has been brought against it. 

3. The varied forms in which it has appeared show that there is 
some simple truth, or truths, common to all, and of which all men have 
perceived the correctness, which lie at its foundations, though ocher 
truths have been perceived through the light of nature, by some only, 
by which they have been able to form a better idea of God than 
others. 

4. These simplest truths are seen not only to be embraced in the 
higher Heathen ideal, but to enter also into the conception given by 
Revelation itself. 

5. There is thus manifested, also, the existence of that knowledge 
of God in all men, which enforces the duty of worship, and reverence, 
and causes accountability to Him. 

6. The continuance of this belief among those, whose self interest, 
because of sin, would naturally have led them to reject it, is a strong 
proof of the sincerity with which it has been held. 

III. Is the Knowledge of God innate. 

The knowledge of the insufficiency of mere tradition to prove the 
truth of any doctrine leads us to seek some other ground of this univer- 
sal belief of mankind. Tradition has been pointed out as the primary 
source of this faith. But it is primary, in point of time only, not as 
the real cause of the general acceptance of the doctrine. Neither does 
the belief in a God arise from any -of the Various arguments which 
have been devised for its support. All men reach conviction on this 
subject before they ever hear any discussion about it. To the mass of 
men the arguments have been utterly unknown. While these argu- 
ments are, therefore, to be presented as confirmatory proof, we must 
seek some other cause for this continued general belief of man. 

The true reason for this is that such is the consitution of the 
human mind that it naturally accepts as true, the idea it has attained 
of God, and rests upon belief in His existence, as a fact that ought 
not to be doubted. 

1. This is generally expressed by the statement that the idea of 
God is "innate". But the expression seems to be unfortunate. 

(1.) There are no innate truths in the ordinary acceptation of the 
word innate. The mind possesses no ideas independent of all sug- 



19 Abstract of Theology. 

gestion, or inward contemplation. No truth becomes truth to the 
mind, until it is perceived to be truth. 

(2.) If the idea of God were in the mind, as innate is commonly 
understood, that idea would be as perfect in one man as in another. 
But there are evidently various degrees of that perfection. These, 
therefore, must arise from the different measures of cultivation, and 
thought as well as from the different circumstances, by which the 
elements which compose that idea in its perfection, are suggested. 

(3.) Inasmuch as that idea of God, possessed by most men in 
Christian lands, is the result of the teachings of the Scriptures, or at 
least of the philosophical conceptions of men of thought, when the in- 
nateness of this idea is urged as a reason for belief in God, we are 
naturally met by the avowal, on the part of many, if not all, that they 
have no such innate idea. 

(4.) Any idea of God which we have is not an idea of Himself, but 
of certain relations existing between Him, and man, or the universe, 
or of His relation to certain facts which we perceive in connection 
with these. 

2. A better statement, therefore, is that the belief in God is based 
upon the intuitive perception by the mind of certain truths, which 
necessarily involve the existence of God of the verity of which it at- 
tains absolute conviction. 

It has been already stated than man attains intuitive conceptions. 
He is not confined to a single method of obtaining knowledge. He 
arrives at truth through sensation. He is taught it by experience. 
He believes testimony. -He is conscious of Himself. But he is also 
so constituted, as to certain truths, that they are self evident upon 
an intelligent conception of what is meant by them. No reasoning 
about them can make them more convincing. No study of them, 
except as to the nature of the things affirmed, gives deeper con- 
viction of their truth. No personal experience, nor testimony of 
others, gives stronger witness of their reliability. In each indivi- 
dual mind, according to its comprehension of what is meant by 
the things spoken of, there arises personal conviction of their in- 
dubitable truth. This is really what is meant, when it is affirmed 
that these ideas are innate in man. 

All that is necessary, prior to such intuitive conception, is a 
knowledge of the meaning of the truth, which is to be intuitively 
perceived. Take, for example, the mathematical axiom before quo- 
ted "the whole is greater than any one of its parts." Before the 



Abstract of Theology. 20 

truth of this is perceived, it is necessary to know what is meant by 
"whole", and "part", and "greater". As soon as these are known, 
the truth of the affirmation at once appears. It is on this account that 
the term "God", or the expression "the true idea of God", cannot be 
a part of an intuitive conception. We cannot know "God." We may 
know certain things about God. We have not "the true idea of God." 
We only have some true idea of God. Hence our statement was lim- 
ited to the assertion, that "such is the constitution of the human 
mind that it naturally accepts the idea it has attained of God as true." 

These intuitive conceptions are originally single. Sir William 
Hamilton makes simplicity a characteristic of intuitive truth. In op- 
position to this statement which he quotes, Dr. Charles Hodge con- 
tends that "all of the propositions of the First Book of Euclid were as 
plain at first sight to Newton as the axioms, and the same is true in our 
moral and religious nature. The more that nature is purified, and 
exalted, the clearer is its vision, and the wider the scope of its intui- 
tions. * * * * If a proposition be capable of resolution into simpler 
factors, it may still to a powerful intellect be seen as self-evidently true. 
What is seen immediately, without the intervention of proof, to be 
true, is. according to the common mode of expression, said to be seen in- 
tuitively." Sys. Theol. Vol. 1, p. 193. Both of these writers appear 
to be right, and both wrong. Hamilton is correct in stating that sim- 
plicity is a characteristic of intuitive truth, but incorrect in maintaining 
as a consequence that no complex truth can be intuitively perceived. 
For the mind, in perceiving separately the correctness of two intuitive 
truths, may at the same time combine them into a single conception, 
if they are homogeneous, just as we unite the different qualities of 
any object, as a table, or chair, and express them by a single term. 
But the mind apprehends these separately before it thus connects 
them. Indeed, it never so unites them, as not still to preserve their 
separable character, and to cognize them as such. "The clearer is its 
vision," and "the wider the scope of its intuitions," to use the figura- 
tive language of Hodge, the more distinctly separate, and the more 
plainly plural do these intuitions appear. 

3. In seeking, therefore, for the intuitive conceptions which enter 
into the idea of God, we ought not to be surprised that they are 
simple, and yet that two, or more of them, may unite in the proof of 
His existence. Thus is it, that so far as God is known, His existence 
is intuitively known, however few, or many, may be the intui- 
tions involved ; for the mind while originally perceiving them separ- 
ately, still combines them together, and as the result of all, as of each, 



21 Abstract of Theology. 

believes that God exists. But the meaning of what is thus affirmed, 
in relation to a single intuition only, is far less than in relation to two, 
or three, or all. 

Of these intuitive conceptions we shall find that only the simplest 
are universally accepted. Greater intelligence, cultivation, and 
thoughtful n ess lead to the knowledge of others by some. Were these 
so stated to all as to be comprehended, they would be as fully accept- 
able to all as to any. They are limited, as to their reception, not be- 
cause they are less true, nor because the nature of one man accepts, 
while that of another rejects them, but because they have either not 
been suggested to the intellect, or, if suggested, their meaning has not 
been understood. The more of these that we know, and the higher 
the nature of the thought conveyed by them, the purer, and the 
greater, will be the meaning to us of the Being of God. 

4. Some of the more manifest of these may be taken as examples 
of their nature, and of the manner in which men arrive, through them, 
at the knowledge of God's existence. 

(1.) That which is dependent must have its final support in some- 
thing purely independent. 

(2.) Derived existence must have its ultimate origin in that which 
is self existent. 

(3.) Every effect must have its cause, either within, or without 
itself. 

The truth of the above affirmations must be admitted as soon as 
their meaning is perceived. But, if the first be true, there is some 
being upon whom men depend, and to whom, therefore, they are under 
obligations of duty, and obedience, whom they must fear, and whose 
protection they must seek. This is the most general idea of God. If 
the second be true, the being upon whom men depend, is, also, the 
one through whom they exist; or there are two beings, the one the 
source of life, the other the cause of its preservation, and support. 
One of these will be independent, and the other self existent. That 
the uncultivated should not perceive that these two are necessarily 
one is not a matter of surprise. The possibility of this has allowed 
the existence of polytheism. But, when they are thus united, the idea 
of God has been that of an independent self existent Being, w T hich is a 
complex idea, and is consciously based upon, not one, but two in- 
tuitive conceptions, though they are now united together. In like 
mariner, the third of these is accepted as soon as comprehended. 



Abstract of Theology. 



22 



It is only necessary, to know what is meant by the terms "effect," 
and "cause within, and without itself." This is attained through 
observation, and experience. The idea of cause, and effect is found 
even in very young children, who cannot be persuaded that any- 
thing has happened without a cause. Nor is it difficult to teach 
what is meant by "having the cause within, and without itself." 
It may be illustrated by the difference between a clock, moving its 
own hands because of its own mechanism, and the hands of the 
same clock, moved by some person ; or by that between a horse, 
which has the power of self motion, and the cart which moves only 
because he draws it. The meaning of the terms of this intuitive 
suggestion has not been difficult to comprehend; consequently the 
existence of God, as based upon it, has been generally accepted. 
To the common mind, especially, it has commended itself, as teach- 
ing that God is the creator of the world, and thus accounting for 
the existence of all things He has made. In this case, also, men 
have not always associated the things which we see, with the one 
God. In some forms of belief, they have divided the universe 
among more gods than one. In others, they have conceived of it as 
made by a god inferior to the Great Supreme, whom they recognized. 
But, in these varied ways, they have shown a universal accept- 
ance of the idea of causality, and of the intuitive conception which 
arises upon its comprehension. The only .objection made to it, is 
that of Hume, and Kant, who have thought that the knowledge of 
causation must be limited by our experience. But evidently ex- 
perience only teaches the meaning of the terms of that law, not the 
law itself. 

5. Other intuitive conceptions might be added which are not so 
simple, but which are as truly believed by those who comprehend 
them. Take for example some of those which enter into the idea 
of God as the perfect Being. 

(1.) The distinctions of right, and wrong must have some absolute 
standard, which is personal, conscious, unchangeable, and without 
limitations of time or space. But this is God. 

(2.) Moral perfection cannot be merely ideal, but must have some 
real embodiment; else there could be no imperfection, and, especially, 
no degrees of imperfection, since degrees imply the existence of that 
to which imperfection approaches, or, from which it recedes, and this 
can only be absolute perfection. But absolute Perfection is itself 
God. 



23 Abstract of Theology. 

IV. The arguments which confirm this belief. 

The theistic proofs have been divided into arguments a priori, and 
a posteriori. This is a convenient division, although some of those 
a priori have in them some elements of an a posteriori nature, and 
some of those a posteriori depend upon a priori principles. As to 
some of them, also, it is difficult to draw an exact line, and assign 
them to the one class, or to the other. 

An argument a priori is one to prove the existence of some effect, 
or fact, from the knowledge we have of an antecedent cause, or of 
some reason, or principle, in the nature of things, which necessarily 
involves the existence of a certain consequence. 

1. Some of the arguments a priori in proof of God's existence. 

An argument a priori, for the being of God, is one based upon some 
reason in the nature of things, or some principle cognized by the 
human mind, by which, independent of any examination of the works 
of God, we are led to infer His existence. 

(1.) The most celebrated of all of these is that which argues the 
being of God from the idea we have of Him in the mind. It is sup- 
posed to have been first presented by Anselm, Archbishop of Canter- 
bury, England, in his work called Proslogium seu Allogium de Dei 
natura, chap. 2.3.4. His form of the argument may be briefly stated 
thus. By definition God is a Being such as no greater can be con- 
ceived. But we can conceive of a being whose non-existence is im- 
possible. If God, then, does not necessarily exist, we can conceive of 
a greater than God, which is contrary to the definition. Therefore, 
God must exist. 

This argument, from the idea of God in the mind, was a favorite 
one of the Schoolmen. It appears in various forms in many of their 
works. It has, however, been commonly called the Cartesian argu- 
ment, having been set forth with signal ability by Des Cartes. One 
form in which he gives it is based upon the idea in the mind of 
Supreme Perfection. To this we attain, though ourselves only crea- 
tures of imperfection. Whence is it? It must come from the All 
Perfect, who has stamped it on our being, as the artificer sets his 
trade-mark on the work of his intelligence. 

He also presents, in the following syllogism, an argument more 
closely resembling that of Anselm. 



Abstract of Theology. 24 

"To affirm that any attribute is contained in the nature, or concep- 
tion of a thing, is to affirm that such attribute is true of the thing, 
and that it is surely contained in it ; 

But, necessary existence is contained in the nature, and conception, 
of the Deity ; 

Therefore, necessary existence is a true attribute of the Deity ; or 
God of necessity exists." 

[See Blunt's Theological Dictionary, Art. Theism: in which are 
also more full statements of all the above mentioned forms of this 
argument.] 

But the most complete, and clearest presentation of this argument 
is given by Bishop Stillingfleet. Origines Sacrae, vol. 1, pp. 484-492. 
The following is a mere statement of the syllogistic form presented, 
without the arguments that support it. 

That, which we do clearly, and distinctly, perceive to belong to the 
nature, and essence of a thing, may be with truth affirmed of the 
thing; a clear and distinct perception in the mind being the greatest 
evidence we can have of its truth. 

But we do have a clear and distinct perception that necessity of 
existence doth belong to the nature of God. 

Therefore, He must exist. 

This argument, from the idea of God, has been strenuously objected 
to. Kant opposed it on the ground that "the mere supposableness, 
or logical possibility, of a perfect being is no proof of the objective, 
or real possibility of such a being, and existence cannot be inferred 
from a mere idea." Knapp's Theology, p. 86. 

But, in reply to this objection, it may be said that the argument 
against which it is presented, does not prove the mere logical possi- 
bility, but the logical certainty, or necessity, for such a being. More- 
over, that it is not contended that every subjective conception must 
have an objective realicy ; but only that. certain ones may have such- 
a reality, and that this one, the idea of a God, which itself involves 
the idea of necessary existence, must, in consequence of the idea thus 
involved, possess that reality. 

Hodge objects that if it "has any validity it is unimportant. It is 
only saying that what must be actually is.'' But this is not merely 
such an abstract statement. It is a proof that something, namely, 
the being of God, actually is, because of the proof of the correctness 
of our conception that necessary existence belongs to His nature. 



25 Abstract of Theology. 

It has also been objected to it that "it confounds ideal existence 
with real existence." But certainly there is no confounding of ideal 
existence, and real existence, abstractly, nor of forms of ideal, and 
real existence, generally, but the arguments only show the actuality 
of a single form of ideal existence, because the very nature of the idea 
involves its correspondent reality. 

(2.) A second a priori argument for the existence of God was de- 
vised by Moses Lowman, and is from the nature of existence, and 'the 
relation between necessary and contingent existence. The following 
is a still more brief statement of the points of the argument, given 
by Dr. J. Pye Smith, in his First Lines of Christian Theology, 
pp. 99-101. 

1. Positive existence is possible, for it involves no contradiction. 

2. All possible existence is either necessary, which must be, and in 
its own nature cannot but be, or contingent, which may be, or may not 
be. 

3. Some existence is necessary ; for if all existence were contingent, 
all existence might not be as well as might be; and that thing which 
might not be never could be without some other thing as the 
prior cause of its existence, since every effect must have a cause. If, 
therefore, all possible existence were contingent, all existence would 
be impossible; because the idea, or conception of it would be that of 
an effect without a cause, which involves a contradiction. 

4. Necessary existence must be actual existence. 

5. Necessary existence must be always. 

6. Necessary existence must be wherever any existence is possible. 

7. There can be but one necessarily existent being, for two could 
in no respect differ from each other, that is, they would be one, and 
the same being. 

8. The one necessarily existent Being must have all possible per- 
fections. 

9. The one necessarily existent Being must be a free agent. 

10. Therefore, there is one necessarily existent Being, the cause of 
all contingent existence, that is of all other existences.besides Himself; 
and this Being is eternal, infinite, possessed of all possible perfections, 
and is an intelligent free agent; that is this Being is God. 

o. A third argument a priori is that of Dr. Samuel Clarke, in the 
Bjoyle Lectures which he delivered. It may be briefly presented thus. 



Abstract of Theology. 26 

Some thing must have existed from all eternity, for since some- 
thing now exists, it is evident that some thing always was, — otherwise 
the things which now are must have been produced out of nothing, 
absolutely, and without cause, which is absurd, for nothing can be pro- 
duced, and yet be without cause. 

But now if something has existed from all eternity, either there 
must always have been some unchangeable and infinite being, or else 
an infinite succession of changeable, and dependent beings, without 
any original cause, which is absurd. 

Dr. Clarke does not discuss the absurdity of an infinite series in the 
past. 

The impossibility of such a series appears, however, from its very 
nature. There can be no past infinite series, because an infinite 
series is one, the last term of which can never be attained, or com- 
pleted. But, in an infinite series, going backward, the term now 
present is the first of the series, and not the last. The last term of the 
series is really the first in existence. But that first was completed 
before the second. It has already existed. The series, therefore, as 
now before us is one, all of whose terms have already appeared, and 
the series, therefore, however indefinite in the numbers of its terms, is 
still a completed, 'and, therefore, a finite series. [See this matter ably 
discussed by Rev. Joseph Tracy, in the Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 7 
pp. 613-626. Also Turretine. Theol. Vol. 1, Book 3, Ques. 1, par. 6', 
p. 154.] 

The value of the arguments a priori has been questioned. But on 
the other hand they have seemed to some eminently satisfactory. To 
these they have appeared to be clothed with the authority of God Him- 
self speaking through the constitution He has given to the mind, and its . 
capacity for the intuitive conception of underlying principles. To 
those who perceive these principles, the proofs are as conclusive as the 
consciousness of their own existence, and as authoritative as the dic- 
tates of conscience. These principles are accepted, and arguments are 
formed upon them in the same way as in mathematical demonstra- 
tions, and afford those who perceive the truth of them actual demon- 
strations of the fact that God exists. 

But many have thought them fallacious, and have denied the possi- 
bility of demonstrative proof that there is a God. To such the argu- 
ments a posteriori have alone seemed to be valuable. Whether or not 
this be true they are certainly of much greater value in general, be- 



27 Abstract of Theology. 

cause they are much more simple, and better adapted to force convic- 
tion upon the minds of the masses of mankind. 

2. The arguments a posteriori. 

The value of these arguments has not been duly appreciated. Men 
have looked for that kind of demonstration of God's existence, called 
mathematical, which alone can arise from arguments based upon ad- 
mitted axioms, and proceeding, thence to their conclusions by invin- 
cible logical processes. Such arguments, if they exist, can only be of 
the nature of those a priori already considered. 

But while these may not exist, the arguments for God a posteriori 
are as conclusive as similar ones on any other subject. Their nature 
is precisely like that of those upon which all physical science is based, 
and upon which men act in all the affairs of life. 

Physical science pursues the inductive method. It gathers all the 
facts in any matter. It recognizes that there are general laws which 
unite these facts in some one principle, and those who study them de- 
vise a theory to explain them. Such a theory must account for all 
the facts, and not be opposed by any one of them. If the series 
of facts can be traced very generally, and' any theory universally 
accounts for them, while no other can, that theory which, at first, 
in the presence of a few facts, was only probable, becomes more and 
more certain, and finally unquestionable. 

Thus, the theory of gravitation has been accepted as a great law 
of the universe binding it together, keeping all its parts in all 
their courses, and everywhere equally effective according to a fixed 
proportion of numbers, and yet it is seen only in its effects. 

In like manner we arrive, according to the strictest scientific 
method of induction, at the existence of God. The only theory 
which accounts for the universe with all its phenomena is that 
which asserts that it has proceeded from Him. This alone has been 
satisfactory, in the eyes of most men, from the beginning of all his- 
toric records. Mankind have been incredulous as to the sanity, or 
sincerity of those who have denied it. No scientific theory has been 
about facts so universally existent, and so generally known. None 
has dealt with matters of more vital importance, or absorbing in- 
terest. None has been, as has this, an object of thought to every 
intelligent human being. None has so commended itself at once to 
practical men, and philosophers. None, after having been so far for- 



Abstract of Theology. 28 

gotten, because of sin, and ignorance, as to be remembered only in 
its name, and, as to its simplest facts, has risen to a beauty of con- 
ception, which beyond all else constitutes the glory of Grecian 
philosophy, while at the same time its belief has been preserved 
in another race, in its purity, by a literature, which despite all 
tendencies to corrupt the theory, has maintained it in its purest form 
for generation after generation. 

(1.) The first argument a posteriori to be considered is commonly 
called the cosmological, because it argues the existence of God, as a 
First Cause, from the effects seen in the world. It should, however, 
be named the argument from Causation, to distinguish it from the 
teleological argument, and others which are equally cosmological. 

A very striking form of it was put forth by Bishop Berkeley and is 
quoted in Dwight's Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 79 and 80, who gives it thus : 

"We acknowledge the existence of each other to be unquestionable. 
We say that we know this from our senses. Yet, after all, it is 
intuitively certain that what we see is not the living, thinking being, 
which we call man. On the contrary they are merely effects of which 
that living, acting thing is the cause. We conclude the existence of 
the cause from the effects. 

So, in the Universe around us, we perceive a great variety of effects, 
produced by some cause, adequate to their production. 

This cause is God, or 'a being possessed of sufficient intelligence, and 
power to contrive and bring them to pass. 

If it be said that these are only the effect of certain inherent 
powers of matter, and mind and, therefore, demand no extrinsic 
agency, the answer is that this affects the conclusion only by removing 
it one step farther back in the course of reasoning." 

By this is meant that these inherent powers are only effects which 
themselves demand an adequate cause. 

It will be seen that this argument is based upon the law of causality. 
Hence it should be called the argument from causation. 

I proceed now to give this argument in another form, simpler 
indeed, but yet more complete. 

It may be stated syllogistically thus : 

A. Every fact or effect must have its adequate cause, either within 
or without itself. 

B. There are effects in the Universe which have no adequate 
cause, either in themselves or in the Universe. 



Abstract of Theology. 

C. Therefore, there must be an adequate cause for their existence 
individually, and as a whole, in some being without, which is the 
Supreme Being, the cause of all things. 

We consider first the proof of the major premiss of the syllogism, 
namely A., that every effect must have its adequate cause, either 
within or without itself. 

Objection 1. It has been objected to this that there is no such 
thing as causation, and that all of which we have any experience is 
mere antecedence and consequence. 

But it may be replied that experience teaches us that there are 
effects in some consequents which are the result of relation to and 
power in certain antecedents. 

We .admit the existence of many antecedents and consequents 
between which there is no relation of cause and effect, but experience 
plainly teaches that relation in others. 

This has been so far admitted that Hume and Kant have simply 
attempted to confine the law of causation to our experience. But 

(1.) It is evident that causes must exist independently of our 
experience, and, that, when we see an effect, (namely, something 
evidently requiring some power for its production), we know that it 
has had its adequate cause, even though we have never had experience 
of its special cause. Indeed one of the most important branches of 
scientific enquiry is into the unknown causes of existing phenomena, 
which without experience we know must be effects of adequate causes. 
[Thus in Geology, the stratification of the rocks, the existence of fossil 
remains, the broken up upheavals of stratification, &c, are illustrations 
of this. So in astronomy, the perturbations of planets, the movement 
of the stars, the disappearance of stars, the spots upon the sun, and 
the rugged volcanic condition of the moon, &c, &c, are similar 
illustrations. So also in medicine, the production of disease — as 
yellow fever. Even in matters in which the human will or accident 
seems to have been most free from external cause, as in the building 
of cities, in the number of marriages, &c, Social science seeks 
adequate physical causes.] 

(2.) It might also with justice be added, that this point needs no 
proof, because the idea that every effect must have its cause is an 
intuitive conception of the human mind. It arises upon the first 
perception of what is meant by power. The conviction of its truth is 
seen in the very earliest stages of infancy. 



Abstract of Theology. 3q 

Objection 2. It is again objected that we ought to carry this idea 
of causation farther back and apply it to the great First Cause. If 
subsequent effects, or facts, or existences must have had a cause, why 
should not this Being, whom we call God, and who is more wonderful 
in His nature than all others, be Himself an effect and Himself have 
a cause. 

The reply to this is, that experience does not teach us that every 
thing has a cause without itself, but only every thing which has not 
its cause in itself. 

Wherever there is the principle of life there is, to a limited extent 
at least, self-causation in its development. 

(1.) Thus the tree puts forth its own leaves, and flowers, and 
fruits. It is true that it needs to have had its seed planted in a 
favourable position and to be surrounded by favourable circumstances. 
Yet, despite this, even here, though in a very limited way, there is 
self-causation. 

So with the motion in a watch, the cause of which is in its own 
mechanism. 

(2.) This is more distinctly seen as we reach higher forms of life. 
Here the movement is self caused. Such is the movement of a bird 
as it shoots into the air, or of a beast as it springs upon its prey. 
The higher form of this is apparent. The watch needed some action 
upon it from without, before its springs within would act, but no 
outward impelling cause here originates the power. [This may be 
illustrated by the difference between a steamboat, moved by its 
machinery under the guidance of men, and the movement of a fish 
which by its own powers swims through the seas.] 

(3.) In a still higher degree is this seen in man. Here is found 
a self-determining will which puts forth effects which may be more 
confidently spoken of as self-originated. We have not here the mere 
instinct which perhaps blindly prompts the mere animal to act, but a 
will which, through liberty of choice, acts as it pleases, and is governed 
only by motives to which it yields of its own self-choice. 

We do not presume to say that this explains to us God's self- 
existence, and independence, or how he is self-caused, having the 
cause of causes # in Himself, but we simply assert (a) that our experience 
of causes does not force us to find an outside cause for every effect, 
and, therefore, a cause for what we call the first or final cause, but 
simply a cause for every thing which has not its cause of existence 
and action in itself. 



31 Abstract of Theology. 

(b) We may also claim from this, however, that if, between the 
lifeless clod and the man made from it, such difference exists, that 
the one is no cause at all in itself, and the other capable of such self- 
causation, then, when we rise to the Great Being, who has made the 
Universe, we have the right to expect such infinite superiority to man 
that He should be, not only the cause of all things, but, being Self- 
existent, should have within Himself the cause or ground of His own 
existence. 

That there may not be and is not such a Great First Cause is be- 
yond the denial of any. That which satisfies the mind of His 
existence is, that it is so constituted that it cannot rest under this 
conviction of causation, until the idea is presented of a Great First 
Cause having self-existence or the cause of His own existence in 
Himself. 

If this be not true, then there has been an infinite series of finite 
causes from Eternity, or an infinite succession of such series, each of 
which is both impossible and absurd. 

B. There are effects in the Universe which have no adequate cause 
in themselves, nor in the Universe as a whole. 

1. This may be argued from the Universe as a whole, as an exist- 
ing substance, (an entity), or from its component parts as existing 
substances (entities). 

We have the phenomena of the material world about us. 

As presented to our eyes, it is a wonderful mechanism, more so than 
the most perfect machinery man can devise, and presents an effect in 
itself, and in its parts, which demands a cause of more power and 
skill than we can conceive. 

Was it made as it is? If so, how great the cause which will account 
for its phenomena ? 

But it is asserted that it was not thus made, but is. a growth which 
has been reached by long ages of gradual development, accompanied 
by destruction, and renewal, and modification until it has attained its 
present form. 

We shall not deny this, but admit the force of all the evidence 
which suggests it. 

But, after all, this growth is also an effect. It has proceeded either 
from some inherent power of self-development, or has*been produced 
by the power and will of some outward cause. 

It is claimed by anti-theists that it is a self-development of matter 
which has taken upon itself form after form until this result has been 
attained. 



Abstract of Theology. 32 

This theory involves the idea that all growth, and life, and mind, 
are the outcome of original inorganic matter. It claims that in the 
ultimate analysis we reach simple molecules of matter, and that, from 
the development of these, we have this whole universal structure. 

Admit now all that is thus claimed as fact by anti-theists, even go 
so far as to suppose that there has been a time when nothing existed 
bur. molecules, even a few, even two only, even one, if it should be 
desired ; reduce the whole material universe to a speck the one 
millionth part of a grain of sand, — and still we have in that molecule 
an effect entirely unaccounted for, except as it with all its vast 
possibilities was made by some creative energy. There is, therefore, 
even here a demand for the self-existent cause. 

Yet, to admit all of the above, is to admit more than we ought, 
more than there is the slightest reason to suppose to be true ; for there 
is no evidence that any matter has been added to the Universe since 
its creation. Matter is seen to expand, and contract, to take on one 
form, and then another, but there is evidence neither of waste on the 
one hand, nor of increase on the other. But there must have been 
such increase of matter unless the world had in its molecule period as 
many molecules containing in themselves as much material as is now 
existent. Whatever growth or development, therefore, may be 
ascribed to the world, the whole of it has existed from the beginning, 
whether in an organized form or in simple molecules. It is, however, 
as difficult, without admitting a producing cause, to account for the 
world- mass of molecules, even for a single molecule, as for the 
Universe created in the forms in which it appears to-day. 

2. Let us now consider certain actual effects seen in the Universe 
as farther proof of an external cause. 

(1.) Motion. The principle of motion in the Universe is beautifully 
developed. That Universe is regular. It is governed by fixed laws. 
There is harmony in its movements. The principles of centripetal 
and centrifugal action, governed by the law of gravitation not only 
regulate this motion, but cause the Universe to be self-balanced ; so 
that we have a kind of mechanism not only impossible for man to 
imitate, but the principle of which he cannot comprehend though he 
sees and acknowledges it as a fact. 

Now whence this motion ? Inert matter has no motion. A piece 
of rock, or a clod of soil, even a tree, remains always where it is, 
unless moved by some outward power. 



33 Abstract of Theology. 

Our knowledge of this inertness in matter is such that we know 
that an infant's ball will remain forever, where it has been put, unless 
disturbed from without. 

Whence then this motion of the Universe which is not a simple 
movement, such as given to a ball by striking it, but a complex 
motion, involving the description of circles and ellipses and parabola, 
and so involving them as to keep each in its sphere without confusion 
or distraction ? 

Can any one persuade himself that ten thousand balls laid upon a 
plain surface will have any more power of motion than one, or that a 
Universe of them created without motion, would not, unless influenced 
from without, remain utterly and forever at rest ? 

Some thing, therefore, must account for the motion. 

Now our experience is that all motion primarily proceeds from 
mind or will. Thus I move a ball as the result of will influenced by 
my mind. Even if I accidentally kick it, not intending to do so, and 
even ignorant that I have done so, this is still true. I had willed to 
move my body and that body by its contact when in motion with the 
ball has moved it. 

Before motion then we have mind ; before the motion of these 
atoms a directing mind; so that not only for the creation, but for the 
motion of molecules we must recognize God. 

If it be said that this motion was caused by wind, we inquire 
whence came that wind? Is not it itself produced by motion ? If so, it 
cannot have been the primary cause of motion. We are still forced 
to the supposition that motion has proceeded from God. 

If it be claimed that it came from heat, whence was the heat ? Heat 
is also the result of motion. What caused the movement which led 
to its existence ? 

If it be said that the motion was a matter of chance, we ask what is 
chance? Is there any such reality? We apply the name variously, 
but in all cases the thoughtful mind knows that there is no "chance" 
in the sense of uncaused, unwilled forces present. 

Thus I place dice in a box and throw them. I say that the result- 
ant numbers come by chance. But I know that that result has fol- 
lowed unerringly under law from the forces present. But law 
supposes the mind of the lawgiver, and the results of his law are from 
purpose, not from chance. Hence the proverb '. "The lot is cast into 
the lap ; but the whole disposition thereof is of the Lord." Prov. 16;33. 

So also when I meet in New York an acquaintance from Texas, I 



Abstract of Theology. 34 

say r ' : we met by chance. '" By this I mean that the meeting was not 
because of the purpose of both, or either of us. But I do not deny 
the laws which have governed each of us, through which guided by 
a Higher Power we have met as He had purposed we should. 

In no usage of the word chance, therefore, do we mean to assert 
absence of purpose. There is no such kind of chance and by none 
such can we account for the existence of motion in the Universe. 

(2.) Form and life also appear among the effects of the Universe. 

Matter is not simply inorganic with the form and shape which 
might have been bestowed upon it by motion. But it takes special 
forms of life. 

Between the inorganic and this organic life there is a wide interval. 
Even in the very lowest forms of vegetable life there is movement and 
growth and capacity to absorb and increase, and give forth which 
shows a new kingdom in nature. 

It is admitted that here the whole substance is material and that 
the growth of vegetables is nothing more than the absorption into life 
of what has been already in inorganic nature. 

But this power of taking on form and life is very striking. If the 
change could be made into a single form only, it would be still 
surprising. But the forms are innumerable. Not only this, but the 
specific form, having been once assumed, attains not only fixedness 
in the original, but power continuously in the species to reproduce its 
like. Yet, nevertheless, there is a certain power of adaptation by 
which, within fixed limits, there is variation. 

This is the law of plants. In a still higher degree is it true of 
animals. 

Now whence this change from inorganic to such organic matter ? 

Is it inherent in matter ? Then matter would be constantly engaged 
in thus developing the organic from the inorganic. This is evident 
from what we see in crystallization. Here there is power in matter 
to assume special forms. The law under which this is done in each 
kind is known, and, in accordance with such law. and not otherwise, 
are the shapes in crystallization assumed. We can place the proper 
substances in their appropriate relations and produce the result. 
Why ? Because here certain matter has inherent power to assume 
certain forms. But this matter can not assume other forms. Other 
matter cannot assume these forms. And thus is it seen that matter 
as such has not the inherent power to assume form, but that such 



35 Abstract of Theology. 

power has been bestowed only on certain kinds of matter under the 
action of specific law and not of its own prompting. 

Yet from this power of crystallization has been argaed the power of 
matter to produce both vegetable and animal life. The most that 
could be concluded is that some kinds of matter, (such as we now see 
to do so,) under circumstances, (under which it now so acts,) are 
capable of producing vegetable and animal life. But we see this done 
only by propagation and generation from like to like. Therefore, 
only thus are we authorized to infer that such life and form has been 
heretofore prod need from matter alone. This still leaves necessary 
the creation of the first forms through which matter has this power. 

Various attempts have been made to produce animals and plants 
by spontaneous generation. But these attempts have thus far utterly 
failed. 

Because of this inability to produce by any means the organic 
directly from the inorganic, anti-theists have been driven to adopt the 
idea, (a mere idea without proof) that there is a substance which 
they call protoplasm, which common substance underlies all life 
forms vegetable or animal and that, in its varied changes, ordinary 
inorganic matter finally attains to this protoplasm. 

As to this we should remember (a) that protoplasm is not the name 
of a substance which has been found developed from inorganic matter. 
No such substance has as yet been discovered. This is only the 
name that would be given to it if it should be. 

(b) That the name is applied to the earliest forms of organic life 
as being what protoplasm would be if thus developed from inorganic 
matter. But the substance here found is really a part of organic life, 
produced by the process of propagation or generation through which 
matter of this kind becomes life and form. 

The whole idea of protoplasm, therefore, is a figment, except within 
the limits of organic life. 

But, admit this to be true, and that the first forms (the protoplasm) 
that we see are the result directly of inorganic matter and not of organic, 
it must still be acknowledged that in all the protoplasm yet examined 
there is no variation, that all of it is exactly alike, there being but 
one kind of protoplastic germs so far as investigation can perceive or 
material elements indicate. Yet, from a number of specimens of this 
protoplasm, come several different kinds of life. It is as though from 
seed, precisely the same, should come wheat and barley, and rice, and 
rye, and maize. Now, what is here the directing power which, from 



Abstract of Theology. 36 

the same substance, apparently, produces different forms of life, some 
vegetable and some animal, and various vegetables, as well as various 
animals, and which so produces them without variation that the proto- 
plasm taken from one species of animals always produces that species 
and not another? This can be understood, if this be organic life 
which is acting, and acting under the laws which' propagate 
species ; but how explain it of mere matter which has become mere 
protoplasm — a substance which differs in no respect in itself and, 
therefore, for difference in its results must be indebted to some other 
directing power ? 

It is evident, therefore, that in protoplasm we have matter not in 
a process of self-development, but matter already organized in organic 
forms, under a law for reproducing species which law can in no respect 
account for the origin of the species, and, therefore, forces us back to 
the idea of direct creation of the species itself. 

But if this be true, the principle of form and life in the Universe 
speaks to us distinctly of a God. 

(3.) Mind also appears among the effects in the Universe which 
can only be accounted for upon the supposition of a God. 

The whole history of man teaches that, of which we are conscious 
in ourselves, and are taught by experience in others, namely, that the 
powers of the human mind are wonderful. 

Instinct in plants and animals is itself incomprehensible. We can- 
not tell why the vine should put forth entwining tendrils, or the root 
of a plant seek a piece of bone, or push forward to a well of water, 
nor why the birds should fly southward, or a horse or dog should 
dread danger which man cannot perceive, or an ox should utter cries 
of distress at the smell of blood, or a bee construct its cells of the most 
economical shape. We account for it by saying, that God has so 
constituted irrational beasts for their protection and happiness. But 
an anti-theist would say, these are qualities inherent in matter, so 
that it is the matter that acts in the beast as it does in the vine. 

But we have in mind something of which this cannot be said. 
Mind is not mere instinct. Indeed it differs widely from instinct. 
Thus : 

(a) Mind is individual will or purpose ; instinct is common to the 
whole species. 

(b) The will or purpose is not a blind tendency, but is the result 
of mental perceptions, comprehensions of facts, logical reasoning, 
personal fancy, &c, &c. ' 



37 Abstract of Theology. 

(c) Its governing principle, being its prevailing motive, is the 
desire of the individual himself, not of another, not even of God, not 
even the dictate of conscience, or of wisdom, but merely of self-choice. 

(d) It often acts contrary to appetite, and desire, and passion. 
The will refuses to do that to which the person is instinctively 
prompted. ' This is a peculiar mark of excellence, not merely in the 
wise use of the power, but in the possession of the power itself. Irs 
value in wise exercise may be illustrated by the wise proverb of 
Solomon : '"He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and 
he that ruleth his Spirit than he that taketh a city." Prov. 16:32. 

These are some of the most important, particulars in which mind is 
seen to be far superior to instinct. They have been presented as 
though admitting that instinct is a quality of matter. 

But there is no reason for such admission. Instinct is a governing 
power over animals. But whence comes it ? Is it a growth in them, or 
is it something bestowed on them by God for their control, just as He 
gives us conscience ; or for their guidance, as He gives us intuitive 
conceptions? It is doubtless not the former, but, admit it to be a growth, 
whence the power for such growth in some matter and not in all. 
If it is a property of some of these united molecules, or of these 
particles of protoplasm, why has all matter not attained this growth, 
and why does not the growth develope itself alike in all? 

No reason can be given for the phenomena of instinct which does 
not reject the idea of mere matter alone thus developing. Either 

(1.) The power was first bestowed on some molecules to germinate 
this instinct, or 

(2.) It was mOre directly given in connection with the develop- 
ment of the animal life, or 

(3.) The animal was originally created with these functions, and 
they have continued by propagation to appear throughout the species. 

If originating in either of these ways the existence of the instinct 
proves that of a regulating, and originating, or creating mind. 

But, as we have seen, mind is still higher than instinct, and, if 
instinct cannot be accounted for as a material growth, very much less 
so can mind. Even the most persistent advocates for the develop- 
ment of life from matter, admit that between the mind and the body 
which it inhabits there is a wide interval, and while they contend for 
the development of the latter through protoplasm as the work of 
unaided matter, they admit that they have never been able to discover 
anything which can account for the existence of mind. 



Abstract of Theology. 33 

But, if mind has no cause for its existence in the material Universe, 
it must be the direct product of the Infinite mind, the Intelligent 
Personal God. There is an old book called Genesis of Jewish origin, 
in which, long before the days of scientific inquiry into the origin of 
man, was given the only account which has ever satisfied, or will ever 
satisfy the inquirer into that origin. "The Lord God formed 
man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the 
breath of life, and man became a living soul;" Gen. 2:7. This was 
in fulfilment of the divine counsels. "Let us make man in our image 
after our likeness, &c," Gen. 2:26. Strange that any writer of that 
day should have known that the body of man is of the same material 
as the inorganic matter of the earth, and stranger still that he should 
ascribe such origin to his mind and soul as fully accounts for its union 
with matter and for the soul's existence, and, strangest of all, that he 
should have put forth a theory such as the world, with all the wis- 
dom of the intervening ages to this day, has not bettered ; but which 
has forced acceptance of its truth on all. Is not this God telling us 
what God did and informing us of the true origin of mind? 

(4.) Among the many other phenomena of the world which might 
be selected, one other only, namely, Conscience need be mentioned. 

Of what is this an effect ? Is it the result of matter, or of mind ? 
What is it but a controlling power, located in each man, and made a 
part of his nature, which commands him to do the right and avoid the 
wrong, and reproves, rebukes, and punishes him for disobedience to 
its dictates. 

Upon the theory that it is God given, its presence and its pheno- 
mena may be explained, but upon no other. 

If there be a God, (a) There must be eternal principles of right and 
wrong which may form a foundation for conscience. 

(b) There must be obligation to act in accordance with these 
principles, the non-fulfilment of which would involve punishment by 
God, and a reason for the apprehensions of conscience. 

(c) If there be a God, who has created man with his fellows, that 
God would seek the happiness of the race as such, which cannot be 
attained if moral obligations be ignored, and hence would place 
conscience in each man to enforce these obligations. 

(d) If there be a God He must love the right and hate the wrong. 
How naturally would He seek through conscience to have man do 
right and avoid wrong. 



39 Abstract of Theology. 

If on the other hand, there be no God, then 

(a) Is there any right and wrong as conscience teaches there is? 

(b) Are we under any obligation to our fellow men ? Have they 
any rights we should respect ? Is not our power to obtain that alone 
which should limit our right to possess ? 

(c) How can we account for the terror which strikes men for 
crimes which have been committed, terror not of punishment here, 
but hereafter ? 

Conscience, therefore, argues the existence of God perhaps even 
more wonderfully than mind ; for conscience is the law which keeps 
the moral Universe in being and fixes the limits of its wanderings, as 
much, and as truly, as the law of gravitation does the material. Even 
the defects of it in our race caused by sin only prove the more con- 
clusively the power of its law and its necessity to human existence. 
It is at once, in connection with the understanding, the guide to 
what is right and wrong, the authority which enforces the right and 
forbids the wrong, and the avenging judge inflicting punishment on 
those who disobey. In the state of innocence it was perfect in its 
guidance, and authority, and peaceful in its approval. In our present 
state, it is imperfect in its guidance and has only partial authority 
and limited punitive power. In the future it shall be like the worm 
that dieth not, and the fire that is not quenched. 

Now, whence this conscience, if it be not the messenger God sets in 
the heart, teaching man more plainly than the starry heavens show 
His glory, that there is a God, that He rules over man, and governs 
him by laws of right and wrong, and punishes the sinful and 
disobedient, and rewards the obedient and righteous. 

The four effects in the Universe which have been mentioned, 
namely, motion, form and life, mind, and conscience, prove this second 
point [B] of our syllogism, namely, that there are effects in the 
Universe which have no adequate cause either in themselves or in 
the Universe; and from A. and B. follows the conclusion C, viz. there- 
fore, there must be an adequate cause for the existence of the Universe 
and its facts individually and as a whole in some being without, 
who must be a Supreme Being and the First Cause of all things. 

It can only be objected to this conclusion that the Being who has 
made our Universe may Himself have been created by some other and 
that He is not the Supreme Mind. But if He were not, then there 
must be some being who created Him, and thus we are led to look one 



Abstract of Theology. 40 

step further back until we reach an infinite being not created, but 
having self-existence, and Himself the cause of all other beings and 
things. 

We are shut up by the argument from causation to this result, or 
to the adoption of the idea of an infinite succession of finite beings 
which is absurd and impossible. 

The remaining a posteriori arguments may be more briefly presented 
than this first one from causation, for the principles involved in this 
to some extent underlie all the rest. 

The second a posteriori argument is that from design, commonly 
called the teleological argument. 

It may be expressed as a syllogism thus : 

A. Whatever gives proof of design must have had a designer. 

B. The Universe gives proof of design. 

0. Therefore, it must have had a designer. 

Design may be seen either in arrangement or adaptation. In both 
these respects the Universe gives proof of design. 

In its arrangement the specific purpose may not be evident as it is 
in special adaptation. But, evidence is given in that arrangement of 
the Unity and Universality which mark design throughout the whole 
Universe. 

The syllogism of Principal Tulloch presents the argument in a 
convenient form. [Burnett Prize Essay on Theism, p. 147.] 
I. Order universally proves mind. 

II. The works of nature discover order. 
III. The works of nature prove mind. 

The point here to be proved is the major premiss. There can be 
no question about the existence of order and arrangement throughout 
the Universe. This is a matter of universal experience. It is also 
the testimony of all science. 

But does order universally prove mind? We shall ascertain that it 
does by noticing that order always proceeds from law by which 
arrangement occurs, or from direct arrangement. In either event mind 
is the cause of the order and, therefore, is proved by it. That the 
origin of order, is in one of these ways is a matter of universal 
experience, and we may from experience argue at least that such is 
everywhere true. There is no exception to the rule. 



41 Abstract of Theology. 

But, again, we may argue this to be true from the fact that such is 
the constitution of the human mind that "we cannot help apprehend- 
ing everywhere in phenomena of order the operation of a rational will 
or mind, * * * the laws of our rational nature compel us to do 
so. These will not permit us to rest short of mind as an ultimate 
explanation of such phenomena." Tulloch, p. 50. 

Having proved the existence of causation in the preceding 
argument we have also the right here to apply its principles. The 
order is an effect, and as every effect must have its adequate cause so, 
as this is an effect of mind, we argue from it the existence of the 
Supreme Mind, which is alone sufficient to account for such harmony 
and arrangement. 

Finally we may argue this from the very meaning of the word 
order. If order means arrangement then it involves the existence of 
one who arranges. If order means plan, this demands mind to devise 
such plan. If order means laws or regulation, the word involves the 
idea of a lawgiver. 

Thus is it that simply considering design as order or arrangement 
we prove from it the existence of mind. 

But the proof is much stronger when we look at design as adapt- 
ation to the object in view. 

The same arguments here as in the syllogism by Tulloch prove the 
major premiss — whatever shows marks of design must have had a 
designer. 

The illustrations of the minor premiss are numerous and convincing. 

1. In the vegetable world, in the structure and arrangement of 
plants, in their connection with soil, climate, atmosphere, in their 
relations to the necessities of surrounding animal life, in their material 
structure, fitting them to receive and assimilate food, and to breathe 
the atmosphere and absorb its gases, and to reproduce themselves. 

2. In the animal world ; in adaptation to climate, vegetable pro- 
ductions for food, and all the circumstances which make life possible 
at various places for some animals and not for all, especially in the 
peculiarity that man is fitted for all climates, and that the animals 
necessary to be present with him are capable of equal variety of 
climate. 

3. It is also seen in the formation of the various parts of the body, 
especially the eye which presents signal evidences of design, in its 
structure for seeing, in its capacity for motion, in its instinct against 
danger and in its protective apparatus. 



Abstract of Theology. 42 

So also in the hand, and foot, especially the thumb in man which 
gives him such superiority over all other animals, even over the ape 
which approaches him most closely, in felling trees, chopping wood, 
sewing clothes, use of mechanic's tools, and numberless other respects,' 
intimately and essentially connected with a condition of high civiliza- 
tion, as well as of mere physical capacity to prevail over brute force. 

So with a thousand times a thousand marks of special design in the 
forms of life in this world. All prove a designer and that designer 
to be the Creator of the world and its forms of life. 

It is vain to say that ail these have grown from inferior attainments 
by exercise of powers. 

There is no evidence of any different structure in these particulars 
in the individuals of to-day than in those which earliest appear. 

On page 18 of the Independent for September 26th, 1878, may be 
found an advertisement in the form of an article headed : 

The Romance of a Windmill. How it grew from a shingle 
to a machine indispensable to the world's progress. 

The article relates how a small windmill, sufficient to grind corn, 
was made under circumstances of necessity from a shingle — and how 
this grew from time to time until one of the finest windmills of the 
Western Country resulted. 

Now, tell any one that that grew in any other sense than that mind 
carried on the processes from step to step until the final result was 
the final machine, and who will, or who can believe any such nonsense? 
But as well tell any one that, as that the marks of design in this 
world have come from any other source than mind. 

3. Another argument a 'posteriori may be drawn from the 
evidences of God's Providential care and control of the world. 

It may be thus stated : 

Man perceives in his own life and in the lives of others, in the history 
of nations and of the race, evidence of a superintending power, 
governing, guiding, and protecting, and, by means sometimes most 
insignificant, or minute, accomplishing ends of greater, or less magni- 
tude. In the workings of this power there are traceable evidences of 
designing purpose which are so marked as to show it to be not mere 
blind force or established law, but an intelligent agent exercising such' 
oversight as is rendered necessary by the presence of free will in man, 
which, but for such oversight, w T ould prevent the accomplishment of 
purposes, which could with certainty be attained through mere laws 



43 Abstract of Theology. 

alone, were the Universe with its inhabitants a mere machine governed 
only by purely mechanical laws, — and such oversight also as supplies 
to man the information and resources needed at particular stages in 
the world's progress, and as preserves from excess or deficiency the 
equilibrium of food and work in the world and its various parts. 

As none but the Supreme Mind, which is omniscient, omnipresent, 
and omnipotent, can exercise such care, the proof that this care is 
exercised is a proof of the existence of God. 

It will be seen from this that all the proof which can be presented 
of Providential care becomes a proof of a God. This is very strong 
and conclusive, and is to be found in the historical accounts of man- 
kind, as well as in the constant testimony of individual men. 

The fourth argument a posteriori is from the miracles wrought by 
messengers from God. 

A miracle is an extraordinary act performed, or event brought to 
pass, by God, not through the established laws of nature, nor mere 
Providential control, but by direct action without the use of efficient 
means. 

The working of a miracle, therefore, shows the presence and act of 
a power superior to nature which can be no other than its creator and 
lawgiver. 

A miracle is, therefore, evidence of the existence of God. 

This argument rests upon the proof that miracles have been 
wrought. Of this fact it is universally acknowledged that we have 
abundant testimony. But the credibility of the testimony, as for 
example of the New Testament miracles, has been questioned. If it 
be credible then the fact has been proved. 

(1.) It is charged that the witnesses are not credible, because they 
were not disinterested. 

(a) But disinterestedness is not necessary in a witness. Formerly 
courts required this; but now, in the more civilized communities, all 
evidence is heard and due weight is given to each part of it in connec- 
tion with all the other circumstances and facts testified to. 

(b) None of the witnesses for miracles were interested except upon 
the supposition that the facts which they attested were true. They 
could have no purpose, therefore, in testifying falsely. 

(c) They published their testimony at a time when multitudes 
were alive who had been present at the times and places when the 
miracles were said to have been wrought. Had the facts not been 



Abstract of Theology. 44 

believed by all present on such occasions they would have been 
disputed and the witnesses exposed. This was especially true of the 
miracles wrought by Christ and his apostles. 

(d) To the above may be added, that the statements made about 
these miracles were such as to affect the character and position of 
men in public authority, and in some cases appealed to acts of the 
rulers in council by whom the miracles were admitted. None 
could have dared to make such statements, unless they knew they 
spoke the truth. 

(2.) It is charged that the witnesses were themselves deceived. 

But it was impossible that deception could take place in many of 
the miracles. 

Could Israel be deceived about the plagues in Egypt, or the passage 
through the Red Sea, or that of the Jordan, or the fall of the walls of 
Jericho, or the guidance of the pillar of cloud and fire, &c, &c. 

But the rationalist will say that the history of these events was not 
written at the same time with the events themselves, and that the 
people in the wilderness never saw, nor heard the- record. 

While this is not admitted of the Old Testament it cannot be justly 
said of the New Testament histories. The statements are by eye 
witnesses. Could they have been deceived about the stilling of the 
waves, the feeding of the five thousand on one occasion, and of the four 
thousand on another, about the raising from the dead of the daughter 
of Jairus, of the son of the widow of Nain, especially of Lazarus, and 
still more wonderfully of Christ himself. One who looks at these facts 
is obliged to deny that these witnesses were deceived. They have 
either knowingly stated what is false, or their testimony is true. 

(3.) But it is maintained by Hume and others, that even if a 
miracle had been wrought it would be proof only to those who saw it. 
No testimony could convince others of the fact. 

The argument is, that the uniformity of the laws of nature is a 
matter of universal experience, and that such is our knowledge of that 
uniformity that no testimony can convince us of the existence of a 
fact which is not consistent with it. 

But the history of the world shows the contrary. Hume is actually 
presenting his argument, that no such proof could or would be accepted, 
to men who have already actually accepted it. 

There are many events in the world which seem contrary to the 
uniformity of nature, as much so to the ignorant mind as the most 
wonderful miracle to the educated. Are such not accepted ? 



45 Abstract of Theology. 

[Examples are eclipses of the sun or moon predicted ; and the rise 
and fall of the tides to those who have never seen the sea, being a 
phenomenon of water thus running or swelling upwards.] 

Yet testimony of the facts is readily taken as evidence. 

The truth is that men almost universally believe in the truthfulness 
of their fellows and in their capacity to perceive what has happened, 
where there is no apparent reason to the contrary. Even strangers 
are trusted to this extent. But when men of known probity, having 
no motive to deceive and who cannot be self-deceived, testify to any 
fact, however incredible, conviction of the truthfulness of such persons 
is stronger than belief in the uniformity of nature. 

[What would appear more wonderful than that a world, the greater 
part of the .surface of which is water, should be burned up with fire, 
yet has a whole audience, to nine tenths of whom previously such 
a thing would have seemed incredible, been known to accept it as a 
fact upon the mere statement of a single scientific man.] 

In this argument the statements of the Bible have been used not 
as inspired truth, but merely as containing human testimony. In 
like manner in the succeeding argument the Bible is treated merely 
upon its own apparent merits as a book, without reference to its 
divine character. 

5. The fifth argument a posteriori is from the contents of a book 
we call the Bible, which claims to have come from God. If these 
contents show a supernatural origin they prove the existence^ of a 
mind, supreme above nature. 

This proof may be presented : 

(1.) With respect to the prophecies of the Bible. Events were 
predicted and recorded by its writers long periods, even centuries, 
before they took place. Many of them were minutely described, as 
to their nature, locality, persons, times, circumstances, and causes. 
Such descriptions show such knowledge as belongs only to one who 
uses no conjectural knowledge, but knows certainly what will come 
to pass. But such knowledge of the far future can arise not otherwise 
than from full knowledge of the eternal purpose of God. 

(2.) It may be presented with reference to the great central figure 
of the Bible, our Lord Jesus Christ. 

The Scriptures taken as a whole is his biography. The causes of 
his existence as seen in the original and fallen state of man and in 
God's mercy to our sinful race, the preparation for his coming, the 



Abstract of Theology. 46 

gradual development of the doctrine of his person and work, the 
prophecy of his kingdom, his appearance, life, death, resurrection, the 
establishment of his throne in Heaven upon his ascension from earth, 
the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power and progress of his religion and 
its suitableness to our sinful race, all present a life of developed 
growth as plainly the result of a creative mind as the most wonderful 
creation of fiction. The Unity of purpose is seen throughout. In the 
beginning we see but dimly what is taught and catch but feebly the 
outlines of the plot ; but as we progress it grows upon us as a genuine 
creation. Whatever was at first, dim is cleared up by the final record, 
and as we begin to read it over once more, its perfect unity, its 
exactness of detail without superfluity, its development in the far 
future of the importance of facts which at first were only casually 
stated, as though of no special importance, its skilful interweaving of 
the minor characters and events, and its use of them in all their 
fulness to bring on the final catastrophe and its results, the great 
power with which the theme is handled, the majestic simplicity 
which everywhere pervades it, all show a master artist creating a 
character and work, through the instrumentality of writers so numer- 
ous, of such different capacities, under such various circumstances, 
with such manifest unity, as proclaims the mind of God which alone 
could conceive of such a character and work, and alone could thus 
reveal it to man, as He alone could create the real persons and events 
which embody the idea presented. 

(3.) A further proof from the Bible is suggested by Nitsch, which 
is the revelation which it makes of God in Christ. 

He says, "The proof which is peculiar to Christianity, independent 
and historical, is not indeed, as some designate it, miracle, but the 
accomplishment of the passage in Isaiah 40:9. "Behold your God." 
It is revelation in an eminent sense, the existence of God in Christ, 
John 14:9." [Nitsch System of Christian Doctrine, p. 140.] 

This is not the same argument as the last. That was an argument 
from a development extending over so many thousand years, and 
proving the existence of one, who was contemporaneous with all those 
years, working out the character of Christ as the Saviour of mankind. 

This is based upon the evidence of divine perfection seen in Christ 
while here on earth. "He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father." 

The Revelation of the nature of God seen in the Universe commends 
to us the fact that He exists, for the nature indicated is one worthy 
of such a Being. Hence the force of Paul's language in Rom. 1:20. 



47 Abstract of Theology. 

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are 
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his 
Eternal power and Godhead." 

So also with equal self-recommendation comes the character of God 
set forth in the words of the Bible in which He tells us what He is, 
and commends His spiritual nature with His unspeakable holiness, 
justice, goodness, and truth, with His infinite power and wisdom, as 
the character alone worthy of a God, and which makes us say at once : 
This is the true character of God. If He exists, He must be such as 
is thus described. 

But in His incarnate Son we see the embodiment of that which 
before had appeared as but an ideal. Although appearing here on 
earth most obviously as a man, yet the divine attributes and character 
were so exhibited in him that we perceive the truthfulness with which 
Christ said to Philip. '"He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father." 
John 14:9. 

6. and 7. arguments a posteriori. To the above arguments for the 
existence of God may be added two w T hich by proving the non-eternity 
of matter and that there has not been an infinite succession of finite 
beings show that there is a God. 

6. The first is the Historical argument based upon the fact that the 
records of History cover so brief a period of time. If man has lived 
forever, where is the record of that life. It is strange that we find no 
historical monuments which go beyond a few thousand years. 

7. The second is from Geology. This science teaches: 

(1.) That there was a time when life, both vegetable and animal, 
began upon this globe. 

(2.) That the remoteness of the period of that beginning, even 
according to the wildest hypothesis, is capable of calculation. 

(3.) That, in both the vegetable and animal life, of which we have 
fossil remains, there have been distinct successive genera which began 
with small numbers, gradually increased to their culminating points 
and then as gradually decreased. 

All of this is at least proof against Eternity of form, and against an 
infinite succession of finite beings, if it be not proof of an actual direct 
creation of each of these genera. 



Abstract of Theology. 48 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE III. 



The Sources of our Knowledge of Theology. 

Having proved -the existence of God before we study His nature, 
and attributes, and relations to us, we should consider in what ways 
He has made Himself known. These constitute the sources of our 
knowledge of Theology, which are two, Reason and Revelation. 

Reason is that power in man, which enables him to have mental 
perceptions, to exercise thought, and reflection, to know facts, to in- 
quire into their mutual relations, and to deduce, logically, the conclu- 
sions which may be drawn from them. 

It may be exercised either with reference to the natural, or super- 
natural means of knowledge conferred by God. 

When we refer to reason, as a source of knowledge distinct from 
revelation, we mean the information attained, by the use of this facul- 
ty, in connection only with the natural. 

By revelation, we mean the knowledge which God conveys by 
direct supernatural instruction, preeminently, that made known in the 
book known as the Bible. 

Reason involves all the cognitive powers of man, which are the 
faculties through which the mind attains knowledge. These facul- 
ties are not separate, and independent, but are merely the instru- 
ments of the mind. 

The mind is not itself an original source of knowledge, like the 
Scriptures, but is merely an instrument by which the man attains 
knowledge through the exercise of its appropriate faculties. There 
are no such things as innate ideas, which exist, without the exercise 
of proper thought, and reflection, in connection with some perceived 
facts. 



49 Abstract of Theology. 

The means, by which the mind attains knowledge in the exercise of 
its faculties, are five. 

1. Through consciousness, by which we learn our own existence, 
and the fact -that we think, and are personal beings, possessing per- 
sonal identity during the term- of our natural life. 

2. Through the senses, by observation, and experience of the world 
about us. 

3. Through intuitive conceptions, by which, upon the suggestion, 
through some external object, of some principle, we find ourselves at 
onoe convinced of its correctness. 

4. The dispositions instincts and tendencies of our natures. 

5. The course of events in nature, as tending to good, or evil, to 
what is desirable, or disastrous. 

It is manifest that the knowledge, obtained from these various sour- 
ces, must be abundant to teach man the simple facts, upon which rest 
his duty to God ; namely, that there is a God to whom he owes exist- 
ence, and consequent reverence, service, and love, and whose greatness, 
and goodness enforce this obligation; also to show him, that that duty 
has not been discharged, and that he has not the disposition to dis- 
charge it; and consequently to render him uneasy in his relations to 
God, and anxious to appease Him, and secure some assurance of His 
pardon, and approval.. It has also been thought by many, that 
through reason alone man attains the conviction of immortality, and 
of a future state of rewards, and punishments. 

However abundant, may.be the information thus conveyed to man, 
it is nevertheless, clear that his knowledge, in these directions, must 
still remain very imperfect. 

This must have been true of him, even in a state of innocence. 
His finite nature, and the finite conditions, which surrounded him, 
must still have left him ignorant upon many desirable matters. It 
is natural, therefore, to believe that, in that condition, He received 
direct communications from God, which are properly esteemed reve- 
lations. 

But this imperfection must have been greatly increased by any sub- 
sequent fall trom innocence. By this, the perceptions of right, and 
wrong would be dimmed, the power of conscience to enforce the right 
would be impaired, the desire to do the right would be diminished, 
prejudices against the right would be created, and affection for God 
would be greatly decreased, if not entirely obliterated. 

Upon these grounds we may infer the necessity of some further 
source of knowledge of God, and of His will with respect to man. 



Abstract of Theology. 50 

We may also argue a priori, as to the nature of this revelation. 

1. It must come from God the source of all our other knowledge. 
No other could give it, and it is fit that no other should do so. 

2. It must be suited to our present condition, confirming the truth 
already known, and teaching that practically useful, to man as a sin- 
ner before God. 

3. It must be secured from all possibility of error, so that its 
teachings may be relied on, with equal, if not greater confidence, than 
those of reason. 

4. It must come with authority ; claiming, and proving its claim, 
to be the word of God, who has the right to command, and to punish 
those who disobey His commands ; with authority also that man may 
with confidence believe, and trust the promises, and hopes of pardon, 
and peace, it may hold out. 

5. That it will be accompanied by difficulties, and mysteries, is 
what may be expected, since these are found frequently attending the 
knowledge derived from reason. 

The gift of such a revelation must of course, depend absolutely upon 
the will of God. It is not for man to say, prior to its gift, whether it 
certainly will, or will not be bestowed. 

That it is not improbable, may be inferred from the fact, that God 
has already made Himself known to us in various ways in ourselves? 
and in nature. If we need further revelation we may hope for it. 

The only reason, to the contrary, is that we have sinned against 
God, and He may have chosen to abandon us to our fate. But this 
is not so truly understood, until revelation has confirmed our convic- 
tion of our sinful estate. On the other hand, the favours which God 
still bestows, and the means of continued knowledge of Him, which 
He affords, indicate, that He has not yet consigned us to our deserved 
fate, and that He may have purposes of mercy towards us. 

That which renders it highly propable is the expectation, seen in 
man, in the conceptions He has formed of God, as one to be propitia- 
ted by sacrifices, and approached with prayer. 

If the expectations, thus formed, are to be verified, the important 
question arises, in what way can God make known to us the new truth 
He wills to teach. 

They, manifestly, speak unadvisedly who assert, that this can, in no 
wise, be done. 

If He so choose, He could impress it on each one, in like manner 
as we attain intuitive conceptions. He might reveal it to individuals 
in dreams, and visions, so as to make each one feel, and know, that the 



51 Abstract of Theology. 

vision is from God. Those through whom He has revealed Himself, 
have, in some such way, attained absolute conviction that God has 
spoken to, and through them, and, with God, there is neither impos- 
sibility, nor difficulty in producing like certainty upon the mind of 
each individual of the race. 

But, as God usually acts through means, so He has revealed Him- 
self to a few, and through them, to mankind in general, 

The only question then is, how can He give, to the race at large, 
evidence, that the men He has inspired are indeed His messengers ? 

This, also, might be done in various ways, but, He has chosen to do 
it by attesting their mission by miracles wrought through them. 

As to the measure of authority to be ascribed to these miracles, 
men differ in opinion. 

Some teach that any miracle wrought is, of itself, sufficient attesta- 
tion of the messenger, and of the truth which He teaches. 

Others, that miracles are only proofs to those who behold them, and 
dubious proof even" then, and that the true purpose of them is not 
to set l he seal of God's authority, but simply to awaken attention, 
and excite awe, and thus prepare the way for a proper hearing of the 
divine message. These assert that the revelation comes to us with the 
authority only of the self convincing nature of the truth made known. 

It is necessary, in this difference of opinions, to seek carefully after 
the true theory. From no source can we better obtain it, than from 
the revelation itself, the teaching of which will be seen to be fully cor- 
roborated otherwise. 

The Scripture theory seems to be this, that, in any new revelation, the 
prophet of God must present a doctrine, perfectly consistent with any 
past revelation, and with the knowledge conveyed by nature, and 
muse, at the same time, confirm His authority, as a teacher from 
God, by miracle. Without the miracle, the new truth has no evidence 
that it is not simply the product of human reason, or imagination. 
The coincidence in doctrine is necessary to protect against pretended 
miracles, and the tricks ot unprincipled men. Besides, the new truth 
can have no higher authority than the old, and therefore cannot su- 
persede it, for the old also has come from God. 

1. The scriptural authority for this theory is conclusive. 

Moses announced the law which shows the miracle alone not to be 
conclusive. See Deut. 13:1,2,3. "If there arise among you a prophet, 
or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign, or a wonder, and the 
sign, or the wonder, come to pass, whereof He spake unto thee, say- 
ing, let us go after other Gods, which thou hast not known, and let us 



Abstract of Theology. 52 

serve them; thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or 
that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God proveth you, to know, 
whether ye love the Lord your God, with all your heart, and with all 
your soul." This passage shows that even a miracle, wrought by one 
teaching doctrine not in accordance with that already received, should 
not tempt to belief in the divine authority, of him who should work it. 

The Apostle Paul gives similar instruction to the Galatians. Gal. 1:8. 
''Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto 
you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him be ac- 
cursed." Whatever might be the accredited authority of the mes- 
senger, his teachings were not to be received. 

Yet, with all this, the Scriptures do not disparage the miracle. The 
miracles of Mosaic times are constantly referred to, as indubitably 
marking it as divine. Nicodemus recognized the high position as- 
signed to them by the Jews. John 3=2. '-No man can do these mir- 
acles, which thou doest, unless God be with him." Christ himself 
says: John 10:25. "The works that I do, in my Father's name, they 
bear witness of me." 

This theory of the Scriptures is not necessarily based upon the idea, 
that real miracles can be wrought otherwise, than by divine power. 
Still the language, sometimes used, is liable to this construction. And 
much depends upon the definition of a miracle. If a miracle be a sus- 
pension of the fixed laws, which God has established for the world, that 
suspension can only occur through His special permission. Taking this, 
as the true meaning of the word, we can understand, why such stress 
is laid in the Scriptures upon the Mosaic miracles, and those of Christ, 
since many of them are such as nothing, but divine power could ac- 
complish. But the word miracle in the Scriptures has not this restric- 
ted meaning, but is applied, likewise, to any marked supernatural 
event. Because men are liable to put these upon a level with the 
miracles w-hich God alone can work, they are warned not to follow 
after what is thus supernaturally done, if it be accompanied by such 
teaching as is contrary to truth already received. 

See the apparent reality of such miracles in connection with the 
magicians of Egypt, commencing with Ex. 7:11, and continuing to 
Ex. 8:7. See also the conviction expressed by the magicians, Ex. 8:19, 
when they failed to produce lice from the dust, "This is the finger of 
God." 

See also what Christ says. Mark. 13:22. "For false Christs, and 
false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs, and wonders, to seduce 
if it were possible, even the elect." 



53 Abstract of Theology. 

See also, Rev. 16:13.14. "And I saw three unclean spirits, like 
frogs, come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of 
the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. For they are 
the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings 
of the earth, and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of 
that great day of God Almighty." 

It is because of this liability to be deceived, that the Scriptures re- 
quire the miracle, and the concurrent doctrine, as both essential to 
the reception of a new revelation. 

2. This theory alone concurs with the course, to which nature nec- 
essarily impels us. 

To the extent that we are fully convinced of the truth of a doctrine, 
no subsequent revelation could change our belief. It is true, that this 
does not apply when we have doubts ; but, when our knowledge is 
fixed, we cannot be moved. No amount of miracle could convince 
those, who have attained this knowledge, thai, the nature of God is 
otherwise than pure, and holy, or that He delights in worship not of 
the heart, or that He is not infinite in justice, and holiness, goodness, 
mercy, and truth, or that He will pardon sin, without due satisfaction 
to His law. 

3. This theory accords with the progressive character of divine 
revelation. 

The earliest revelation came to those, who had heretofore been 
guided by reason only. This was true, even down to the beginnings 
of the Old Testament Scriptures, and, in that economy, only prepara- 
tion was made for the future glory of the New Testament revelation. 
Hence, the truths taught, were, for the most part, only those which 
come within the compass of discovery by reason, or acceptance by it, 
upon due suggestion, namely : the existence of one God, the fact of 
creation, the law of moral obligation to God, and man, the punishment 
of sinners, the duty of repentance, the pardoning mercy of God, and 
the law of sacrifices, with substitution and satisfaction. 

The new economy goes further in its clear instructions; it teaches 
the vicarious atonement of Christ, involving representation in Him, 
and also in Adam, the doctrine of the Trinity in the Godhead, the 
mysterious union in the person of Christ, and many other truths here- 
tofore only very indistinctly revealed. 

These could not have been presented to those only taught hereto- 
fore by reason. But the revelation, which stood between, foreshadowed 
them in different wavs. From it alone, originally, thev would not have 



Abstract of Theology. 54 

been discovered. But now that they are made known, that revelation 
is seen to concur with the new statements, and, the conformity, of the 
clearly expressed doctrines, to the mere outlines ol them in the past, 
sustains the fact, tint they have a common author, and that the di- 
vine revealer is the same. It is like the presence in animals of the 
same genus in earlier days, oi germs, which find their developement 
in species which come later. 

4. This accords with our means of judging what course of action, 
infinite wisdom would have devised. 

The conviction we have of past truth, renders it impossible, that 
we should throw it aside. We must therefore, still hold it fast. That 
conviction has come from God, and we can have no higher evidence. 

Yet, other statements, and doctrines, which may be very probably, 
or even certainly true, may be taught by men, as revealed to them, 
when they are either self deceived, or attempting to deceive others. 
Hence, we must have the attesting miracle. 

On the other hand, we are liable to be deceived, as to what is 
supernatural, and especially, in the supernatural, as to what is 
within the limits of created power. Hence we may be misled by 
the craft of men, or by the superhuman power of wicked spirits. 
Therefore, no doctrine must be accepted contrary to a truth already 
received. . 

A revelation, such as we have described, having been given, and 
proved, another question arises ; what is the relation, which reason 
bears towards it ? 

We may lay down the following facts. 

1. That reason is the first revelation, and is consequently pre- 
supposed in any other. 

2. That the facts of reason cannot be denied by any subsequent 
revelation. No truth can destroy other truth. 

A limitation must, however, be put on the province of reason. 
The doctrines of which it may judge, are those only which come 
within its sphere. Upon the presentation of a new doctrine, rea- 
son may decide, whether it agrees with former knowledge. If agree- 
able thereto, it must be accepted. If opposed, it must be rejected. 
But, if it be above reason, it must stand, or fall with the rest of 
the revelation. God may, in His mercy, refrain to try faith by a 
revelation of supernatural doctrine, but, if He reveals it, it must be 
no barrier to the reception of that doctrine itself, or of the revela- 
tion which accompanies it. In an able article in the Southern Pres- 
byterian Review, Vol. 1, pp. 1-34, on Reason and Revelation, Dr. 



55 Abstract of Theology. 

Thorn well, puts this limitation npon reason, that it is sole arbiter, 
within its own bounds, but no judge beyond thein. He thinks that 
in this way, only, can it be applied as a test of doctrine. The theory 
is undoubtedly correct. It errs, only, in not recognizing the pre- 
cise manner in which Scripture brings it in, as an arbiter ; not as 
the judge of truth, as disconnected from the past, but, as related 
to the various times, and forms, in which God has taught it. Rea- 
son may not only judge a new revelation, by the truths taught by 
reason alone, but also by those which have been made known in 
some previous revelation. 

The office of reason with respect to revelation, is therefore seen 
to be: 

1. To examine the evidence of the miracles upon which it rests. 

2. To compare its doctrines with the teaching of the past, and 
recognize their correspondence with, or opposition to that teaching. 

3. To adopt, or reject the revelation, according to the evidence 
afforded that it is God's truth. 

4. To interpret its contents, according to the best light, which 
learning affords. 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE IV. 



UNITY OF GOD. 

The arguments by which we have proved the existence of God have 
shown us : 

1. From that of causation — that He is self existent — having the 
cause of His existence in himself. 

2. From the proof of design, and from His creation of spirit, that 
He is an intelligent personal and spiritual Being. 

3. From the non-eternity of matter, that He alone is eternal. 

4. From Providence and Miracles that He continues to rule and 
govern the world which He has created. 

In them all, have been the foundations upon which proofs of 
his wisdom, power, and goodness, as well as many other attributes are 
based. 

The information thus received is however insufficient, and is cap- 
able of being greatly increased by further examination. Having 
proved that God is, we naturally desire to know more of what He is, 
and who He is. 

This leads to an inquiry into His nature or essence, and since the 
nature and essence of all being, even of ourselves, can be known only 
by considering its mode of existence, its qualities and its manner of 
manifestation, we are led to inquire into the mode of God's existence 
and into the attributes and works by which He has made Himself 
known to us. 

Preliminary to this however are two subjects which first demand 
attention, viz : The Unity and the Spirituality of God. 

The Unity of God. 

1. The proof thus far attained, to say the least of it, is not incon- 
sistent with that unity. Indeed one God is all that is demanded by 
or involved in that proof. 



57 Abstract of Theology. 

But one first cause is needed; but one designer is suggested; one 
being alone meets all the conditions arising from our sense of depen- 
dence on another ; but one is required to account ior the evidences 
of providential care over the world ; but one for the wonders in 
miracles. But one for the scriptures with their prophecies and their 
revelation of Christ and God ; and but one for the common consent 
of mankind. 

This last point is the only apparent exception, 

But 1. Universal consent only goes so far as to admit the existence 
of one God. Many have in one way or another assumed there are 
more, but the belief in more than one is not universal. 

2. The belief of more than one God was not the earliest type, but 
has been the result of corruption of the truth. This may be ac- 
counted for either from reverence for objects as representations of the 
divinity, as of the heavenly lights or of animals or statues represent- 
ing deified attributes of God, or for men after death regarded as ex- 
ponents of the same. 

3. The belief of one God thus found in the earliest records of all 
nations was maintained among most men of intelligence even in the 
days of Heathenism. See Cudworth's Intellectual System of the 
Universe, Vol. I. pp. 293 to 638, for ancient Latin, Greek, Persian and 
Egyptian. 

As to Brahminism, see Maurice's Religions of the world, p. 59. 
As to Buddhism, see Maurice p. 102-3. ■ 

As to the classic writers, see also the testimony of Cicero de Natura 
deorum, pp. 11-13 of translation in Bohn's library. 

As to the mass of Heathenism we have this testimony from Tertul- 
lian, quoted by Tholuck on Heathenism, p. 23. 

"In the deepest emotions of their minds they never directed their 
exclamations to their false Gods, but employed the words "By God", 
"As truly as God lives", "God help me". Moreover they do not 
have their eyes directed to the capitol, but to heaven." 

This belief in one God is true, even of that dualism which arose 
among the Persians, because of their knowledge of the struggle be- 
tween good and evil connected with the presence of sin in the world, 
ior they believed in a God superior to the two contestants in 
this struggle and thus may be claimed as accepting the idea of the 
unity of God. See Cudworth, Vol. 1, p 411, &c. The argument for 
universal consent therefore does not demand more than one God. 



Abstract of Theology. 58 

2. But the proof of God's existence is not only not inconsistent with 
the unity of God, but renders that unity highly propable and indeed 
almost certain. 

The unity of the first cause, and of the designer 'is naturally if not 
necessarily involved in the unity of will or purpose or design, seen in 
the effects produced in Creation and Providence. 

These show at least such perfect harmony and agreement between 
the wills of all Gods, if there be more than one, as can result only from 
one Being, or from several, as fully agreeing together as though they 
were but one. 

But the very idea of will involves choice, and choice involves such 
right and possibility to select between two or more things as forbids 
original agreement in choice between two different Beings. Either 
therefore there must be difference of choice which would destroy the 
uniformity or there must be a subordination of will one to another, which 
gives supremacy to one of the Beings. This result would be to make 
that one a first cause of will or action to the others, and therefore to 
make Him alone God. 

If therefore there be uniformity in the designs and works of nature, 
that is almost, if not quite, certain proof that there is but one God. 

That uniformity is seen 

1. In the materials which compose it. 

2. In the qualities possessed by these materials. 

3. In the nature of the forces which they evolve. 

4. In the unity of design between all living forms, fishes, reptiles, 
birds, mammalia in all parts of the world whether adapted for air, 
water or earth, whether in fossils of the past or living organisms of 
the present — and in germs seen in one 'species, only as germs and 
developed in another separated from it by a wide interval of time. 

3. The only objection to the unity of God which can be drawn from 
the world arises from the presence of pain and ill, of sorrow and suf- 
fering, of guilt and sin, together with the violent and destructive 
forces of nature. 

1. But these are not inconsistent with the unity of God. 

(a.) If they ought not to be and God could prevent them, they 
would prove lack of goodness, not of unity. 

(b) If they ought not to be and God cannot prevent them, then they 
would prove some other Being to exist greater than He, and then 
He would be God. 

2. But there is no evidence that they ought not to be, and are not 
perfectly consistent with God's goodness. 



59 Abstract of Theology. 

(a.) They may be part of a system which best exists in connection 
with them. We see this in part so far as the destructive forces of 
the world are concerned. 

(b.) We find among them traces of a working together for final 
and intermediate good ends, and hence they may safely be said neither 
to militate against goodness nor unity. 

(c.) The evils referred to, are as apparently under uniform general 
laws a^ any other things known to us. Hence their perfect consistency 
with unity. 

4. But while some of the arguments for God are only consistent with 
His unity and highly suggestive of the same, and others make it so 
highly probable as to be almost certain, there are others which estab- 
lish that absolute certainty. 

1. The idea of God in the mind, to which is attached that of neces- 
sary existence, is the idea of one God, and one only. The notion of 
two or more Gods is self contradictory, for neither of them can be the 
absolute and perfect and independent Being which is our idea of God. 
All the evidence for God therefore contained in the first of the a priori 
arguments is for one God and one only. 

2. In the argument from the nature of necessary existence, (the 
2nd a priori,) the 7th point was : "There can be but one necessarily 
existent Being, for two necessarily existent Beings could in no respect 
whatever differ from each other; that is they would be one and the 
same Being." 

The nature of necessary existence therefore proves the unity of 
God. 

5. The proofs we have thus far presented from nature for the unity 
of God are abundantly confirmed by the statements of Scripture. 

1. The passages which declare explicitly that God is one. Deut. 
6:4. Mai. 2:10. "Hath not one God created us." Mark. ,12:29, 32. 
Gal. 3:20. 1. Tim. 2:5. Eph. 4:6. James 2:19. 

2. Those that assert that there is none else or none beside Him. 
Deut. 4:35. 39. Deut. 32:12. 1. Sam 2:2. 2. Sam. 7:22. 1. Kings 
8.60. 1. Chron. 7:20. Isa. 44:6.8. Isaiah 45:5.6.21.22. Isa. 46:5. 
Joel 2:27. 

3. That there is none like Him nor to be compared with Him. Ex. 
8:10. Ex. 9:14. Ex 15:11. 2. Sam. 7:22. 1. Kings 8:23. 1. Chron. 
7:20. 2. Chron. 6:14. Isaiah 40:25. Isa. 46:5. Isa. 45:22. Jer. 
10:6. 



Abstract of Theology. 60 

4. That He alone is God. 2. Sain 22:32. 1. Kings 19:15. Ezra 
1:3. Neh. 9:6. Psalm 18:31. Ps. 86:10. Isaiah 37:16. Isaiah 
43:10. 11. 12. Isaiah 45:22. Isa. 46:9. John 17:3. 1. Cor. 8:4 
5. 6. 

5. That He alone is to be worshipped. Ex. 20:5. Ex. 34:14. 
Judges 13:16. 1. Sam. 7:3. 2. Kings 17:36. Matt. 4:10. Rom. 
1:25. Rev. 19:10. 

6. Which forbid any one else to be accepted as God. Ex. 20:3. 
Deut. 5:7. Isaiah 42:8. Hosea 13:4. 

7. Which proclaim Him as supreme over all so-called Gods. 
Deut. 10:17. Josh. 22:22. Psalm 96:4.5. Jer. 14:22. 1. Cor. 8:4. 
5. 6. 

8. Which declare Him to be the true God. Jer. 10:10. 1. Thess. 
1=9. 

(a.) The Scripture doctrine of the unity of God is not affected by 
those expressions, which seem to recognize other gods as when 
the gods of the heathen are spoken of as their gods in Judges 
8=33, 9:27, 11:24, 16=23, 24. 1. Sam. 5=7. 1. Kings 11:33. 2. Kings 
1=2. 16, and many other passages. Deut. 10:17. "The Lord your God 
is God of God and Lord of Lords " Josh. 22=22. The Lord God of 
Gods, the Lord God of Gods, he knoweth and Israel he shall know. 
Psalm 96:4. 5. For the Lord is great and greatly to ^>e praised, He is 
to be feared above all gods. For all the gods of the Nations are idols 
but the Lord made the heavens. 

Jeremiah 14 : 22. Are there any among the vanities of the Gentiles 
that can cause rain ? or can the heavens give showers ? art not thou 
He, O Lord our God? 

1. Cor. 8=4. 5. 6. As concerning therefore the eating of those 
things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol 
is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. 
For though there be that are called Gods whether in heaven or in 
earth (as there be gods many and lords many) but to us there is but 
one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him. 

1. " Such Gods are only so-called Gods and exalted to such places 
by the false conceptions of men. 

2. Many of them have solely imaginary existence. 

3. W T here there is any corresponding existence, they are but crea- 
tures of God dependent upon him for existence and even permission 
to exercise power and influence. 



61 Abstract of Theology. 

4. These Gods are identified in the New Testament with the 
devils which Christ cast out, and which were subject to him and his 
disciples, and who are only the angels or messengers of Satan, and 
therefore fallen created angels. 

Acts 17=18. Some of the philosophers who met Paul at Athens 
said of him, "He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods," 
(daemons) — This passage shows that the word which is constantly 
used in the New Testament for the Devils cast out, was a word pro- 
perly used by these Greeks as applicable to their gods. 

But we have places in which the word is applied by the sacred 
writers themselves to these gods. 

1. Cor. 10--20. 21. The things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they 
sacrifice to devils and not to God, and I would not that ye 
should have fellowship with devils. We cannot drink the cup of the 
Lord and the cup of devils, we cannot be partakers of the Lord's table 
and of the table of devils. 

Rev. 9=20. And the rest of the men whist were not killed by these 
plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands that they should 
not worship devils and idols of gold and silver, and brass and stone, 
and of wood, which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk. 

(b ) Such expressions as apply the word God to Moses as, 

Ex. 4:16. And he (Aaron) shall be thy spokesman unto the people, 
and he shall be$ even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and 
thou shalt be to him instead of God. 

Ex. 7=1. And the Lord, said unto Moses, see I have made thee a 
God to Pharaoh. 

John 10:34. 35. Jesus answered them, is it not written in your law, 
I said, ye are gods. If he called them gods, unto whom the word of 
God came, and the Scripture carnot be broken. 

The reference is to Ps. 82=6. 7. I have said ye are gods (Elohim,) 
and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like 
men and fall like one of the princes. 

As to these passages referring to Moses, the idea manifestly is that 
#he stood before Aaron and Pharaoh as the representative of God, 
clothed with His authority and having the right to demand confidence 
in his utterances and obedience to his commands. But all of this 
not because of any partaking of divine nature, but because he was 
God's ambassador. 

As to the passage in the Psalms quoted by Christ it is equally 
manifest that this was a metaphorical use of the words to denote the 
recognition of exalted dignity and mighty power. In the psalm 






Abstract of Theology. 62 

which records the word, it is said in the 1st verse, "God standeth in the 
congregation of the mighty ; he judgeth among the gods." This lan- 
guage and the threat of death like men in the 6th verse show that 
it was applied to men who are only metaphorically spoken of as gods. 

The Doctrine of the Trinity is not opposed to the unity of God, but 
only enables us to form just conceptions as to that unity. 

It presents to us three Persons who are not three gods, but one 
God, and as will hereafter be seen shows us that the unity of 
God is to be found in His nature or essence and not in the personal 
relations in that essence, so that there is but one divine nature or 
essence, one Being, one God, although there are three persons subsist- 
ing therein who by virtue of that subsistence are each God. 

We are not led by this doctrine of the unity of God, therefore to 
adopt the Arian notion that the Father is Supreme God and the Son 
only a divine Being in a subordinate sense. Nor is it proper to 
accept as teaching the Sabellian notion, that God is one person mani- 
festing Himself sometimes as Father, sometimes as Son and sometimes 
as Holy Ghost. "Neither does it at all teach Tritheistic unity by 
which these are really three gods, but considered one because they 
have the same nature just as three men may be said to be one because 
of the same human nature." See Gill, vol. 1, pp 183, 184 from which 
this is condensed. 






Abstract of Theology. 



ABSTRA CT OF T HEOLOGY. 

LECTURE V. 

The Spirituality of God. 

I. The one God has undoubtedly a spiritual nature. 

1. He is the creator of spirits. But Spirit is the highest order 
of existence and its creator must himself have the nature which belongs 
to that order. 

2. The creation and government of the world give evidence of 
wisdom, skill, knowledge, and purpose; but these are attributes of 
Spirit. God therefore must have a spiritual nature. 

3 We arrive at the idea of the perfect being by the exclusion 
of all imperfection and the ascription of all perfection. But spiritual 
nature is in every respect an imperfection. Therefore we ascribe it 
to God. 

4. The Scriptures ascribe a spiritual nature to God. 

It is involved in the abundant language .about the spirit of God, 
in which however reference is had distinctively to the third person 
in the Trinity. 

It is also involved in all the intellectual, and moral, and emo- 
tional thoughts and acts ascribed to Him. 

But it •is directly asserted in two places; John 4:24; the lan- 
guage of our Lord to the woman of Sychar ; "God is a spirit and 
they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." 

Again in Heb. 12:9, where fathers of the flesh, and of the spirit 
are contrasted. 

"Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected 
us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in 
subjection to the Father of spirits, and live. 

Compare also Acts 17=24, 25. "God that made the world, and 
all things therein, seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth, 
dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is worshipped 



6o Abstract of Theology. 

with men's hands, as though he needeth anything," &c. 

II. But when we ascribe spirituality to God, we do not intend 
simply to assert that He possesses a spiritual nature, but that His 
nature is exclusively spiritual. By this we mean that He has no 
material organization, that He has neither body, nor members of the 
body such as we have, no shape nor form, no passions nor limitations, 
but has only a spiritual nature. 

1. This is evident from His immensity and eternity ; (infinity in 
time and space.) 

To have an omnipresent and eternal mode of existence is possible 
for a spiritual nature, because spirit has not of necessity succession of 
time and specific limitation of location. But these ot necessity belong 
to matter. It is of necessity that it has a here, and not an everywhere; 
spirit alone can combine the two, the here and the everywhere. It is 
also of necessity that matter exists in time; we know that it exists now, 
that it existed yesterday, that it may exist to-morrow. We know 
that it necessarily has this succession and difference of time. But with 
the eternal God there can be no succession of time, and consequently 
He can have no material nature, but must be purely spiritual. 

2. It also follows from His independence and immutability. 

If God have body, He is capable of being influenced from without, 
for all matter is thus capable of being influenced, of being moved, di- 
vided, added to and diminished. But if thus capable of influence from 
without He is not independent. Therefore the independent God can- 
not be material. 

Again, if He is body, He is mutable, for all matter is capable of 
change. Therefore the immutable God cannot be material. 

3. This may be proved from His absolute perfection. 

(a.) Negatively. From the idea of absolute perfection We exclude 
all that admits of limitation, or change. But body is both limited 
and changeable. Therefore the absolute perfection of God excludes 
a bodily organism. 

(b.) Positively. To absolute perfection we ascribe the possession of 
intelligence, will, and moral perception. But these do not belong to 
body. Therefore body cannot be either in part or whole the abso- 
lutely perfect one. 

4. We realize in ourselves, the defects of a material organization, 
how it confines us, how it causes pain and suffering, how it imposes 
on us joy in sensual pleasures, how incapable it is of knowledga and 
power in itself. Hence we naturally disbelieve that in God is to be 
found an organism so necessarily imperfect. On the other hand we 



Abstract of Theology. . 66 

find our spiritual nature to be of wondrous power and capacity, en- 
dowed with intelligence, skill and wisdom, capable of knowing right 
and wrong, and the true and the false, and possessed of liberty of 
choice, and we therefore ascribe to God the possession of such a nature 
to an infinite extent, with infinite intelligence, skill and wisdom, and 
a will absolutely untrammeled from without. 

In apparent opposition to this doctrine of the pure spirituality of 
God is a large number of passages, which represent God in or with 
bodily form. This language is partly figurative, and partly used as 
an accomodation to human thought, and the incapacity of human lan- 
guage to express exclusively divine things. Such language is called 
anthropomorphic, and is generally so realized as such, as to make no 
false impression, even upon the' most ignorant.. 

It is true however, that some have held that God has body, as for 
example some of the early heretics and even Tertullian, who says : 
"Quis negabit Deum Corpus esse etsi Deus Spiritus est." 

Mohammed held the idea of bodily form in God. So also did some 
of the later Socinians, and this idea is taught in the Racovian Cate- 
chism. 

In forming such views they have been misled by these passages and 
by the Scripture statement, that man was made in the image of God. 

The following is a list of the passages as collected in West's Analysis, 
pp. 17-19. 

Those which speak of Him as having location. Gen. 4:16. Ex. 
19:17, 21. Ex. 20:21 and Ex. 33:14, 15. 

As having motion. Gen. 17:22. Gen. 18:33. Ex. 19:20. Num. 12:5. 
Num. 23:4. Deut. 33:2. Judg. 5:4. 1. Sam. 4:7. Ps. 47:5. Ps. 
68:7,8. Ezek. 11:23. Micah. 1:3. Hab. 3:3. Zech. 2:13. 

As using vehicles. 2. Sam. 22:11. (Cherub and wings of wind, Ps. 
18:10.) Ps. 104:2. Clouds and wings of the wind, Hab. 3:8,15. 
Zech. 9:14. 

Said to dwell on the earth. Ex. 25:8. Ex. 29:43. 44. 1. Kings 
6:11,12. 1. Kings 8:13. 2. Chron. 6:2. Ps. 132:14. Mic. 1:2. Heb. 
2:20. • 

Dwells with man. Ex. 29:45. Lev. 26:11,12. 2. Chron. 6:18. 
Zech. 2:10. Rev. 21:3. 

Dwells in men. 1. Cor. 3:16, 17. 

As having face. Gen. 32:30. Ex. 33:11,20. Deut. 5:4. Deut. 
34:10. Rev. 20:11. Eyes. 2. Chron. 16:9. Prov. 22:12. Nostrils. 
2. Sam. 22:9.16. Ps. 18:15. Mouth. Num. 12:8. Ps. 18:8. Lips 



67 Abstract of Theology. 

and Tongue. Isa. 30:27. Breath. Isa. 30:28. Shoulders. Deut. 
33:12.. HandandArm. Ps.21=8. Ps. 74:11. Pa. 89:13. Ps. 118:16. 
Isa 52:10. Hab. 3:4. Fingers. Ps. 8:3. Bach Ex. 33:21,22, 23. 
Jer. 18:17. Feet. Ps. 18:9. Voice. Ex. 19:19. Ex. 20:22. Lev. id. 
Num 7=89. Num. 12:4. Num. 22=9. Deut. 4:12,36. 1. Kings, 
19:12, 13. Ps. 68:33. Jer. 25=30. Ezek, 43:6. 

Voice, (as dreaded.) Ex. 20=19. Deut. 4:33. Deut, 5 : 24, 25, 26. 
Joel 2=11. Joel 3=16. Amos. 1=2. Heb. 12=19,26. 

To exercise laughter. Ps. 2:4. Ps. 69:8. 

Appears to men. Gen. 35:9. Gen. 48:3. Ex. 3:6. Ex. 19=9. 
1. Kings 9=2 Job 42=5,6. Amos 9=6. 

So that His appearance is described. Ex. 24:10. Deut. 31=15. 
Isa. 6=1. Isa. 60=1,2. Ezek. 1=1. Ezek. 8:1,2,4. Ezek. 43:2. 
Dan. 7=9,10. Rev. 4=5. 

In human form. Gen. 18=1. Ezek. 1=26, 27. Rev. 4=2, 3. 

Four Remarks further, 

1. The Spirituality of God necessarily involves, 

1. That He is invisible and intangible, or incapable of appre- 
hension by the bodily senses. 

2. That He is unchangeable, incorruptible and indestructible. 

3. That He is simple and uncompounded. 

4. Thac He is a living personal Being, intelligent, moral, free 
and active. 

5. That He is infinite and eternal. 

2. Upon the Spirituality of God depends. 

1. His knowledge of all events, and especially of his Spirit- 
ual creatures. 

2. His control of all events. 

3. His purposing all things that shall come to pass. 

3. Because of it, He must receive spiritual worship — 

1. Not that of the body only, 

2. Nor of the outward form, 

3. Nor of presented service, 

4. But of genuine emotion. 

4. Because of it, He cannot be represented in that worship by 
outward forms or images. He is to be approached not with the bodily 
senses, but with the communings of the heart. Hence the second 
commandment, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, 
or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the 
earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth ; thou shalt not 
bow down thyself to them, nor serve them." Ex. 20:4, 5. 



Abstract of Theology. 68 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE VI 



DIVINE ATTRIBUTES. 

The Attributes of God are those peculiarities which mark or define 
his nature and constitute his character. 

They are not separate from His essence or nature, and yet are not 
that essence, but simply have the ground or cause of their existence 
in it, and are at the same time the peculiarities which comprise the 
mode and nature of its existence. 

As they are not separable from His essence, so they are not to be 
regarded as so many different powers and peculiarities or faculties, 
which so belong to God that He is "composed of different elements." 
Hodge 1:369. 

This would take away the simplicity of the divine nature and make 
it compound and therefore divisible and changeable. 

But, on the other hand, they are not simply our different concep- 
tions of God. They have existence independently of His creatures. 
There is some true foundation in God himself for the distinctions be- 
tween them, so that, when we say that God is wise, we do not only say 
that we conceive of Him differently than when we say that He is just, 
but we mean that, there is that in God which makes it proper that we 
should conceive of Him under the different aspects of wisdom and 
justice. 

CLASSIFICATIONS. 

Various divisions have been made of the attributes of God. 

1. One is into communicable and incommunicable. 

The communicable attributes are those, which, to a limited degree, 
He can also bestow upon His creatures. Such are power, knowledge, 
wisdom, love, holiness, &c. 



69 Abstract of Theology. 

The incommunicable are those which cannot thus be bestowed, but 
which of necessity exist only in God. These are infinity, including 
immensity, eternity, and immutability. 

Two other divisions which arrange the attributes precisely like this, 
giving the same lists for the one and the other, are absolute and rela- 
tive, immanent and transient. 

2. Another is into natural, and moral. 

By the natural are meant, those which describe the nature of God 
as distinct from His character ; by the moral, those which describe 
His character. 

Hodge objects to this division, because "the holiness and justice of 
God are as much natural as His power or knowledge. And on the 
other hand God is infinite and eternal in His moral perfections, al- 
though infinity and eternity are not distinctively moral perfections," 
"In the common and familiar sense of the word natural the terms 
natural and moral express a real distinction." Hodge 375:6. 

3. Again divided into negative and positive. Dr. Hodge states the 
division thus. "Others arrange the attributes according to the mode 
in which we arrive at the knowledge of them.' 1 We form our idea of 
God, (1.) By the way of causation ; that is by referring to Him as the 
great first cause, every virtue manifested by the effects which he pro- 
duces. (2 ) By the way of negation ; that is by denying to Him the 
limitations and imperfections which belong to His creatures. (3.) 
By the way of eminence; by exalting to an infinite degree or without 
limit the perfections which belong to an infinite being. If this be so, 
the attributes conceived of by one of these methods belong to one 
class, and those conceived of, or, of which we attain the knowledge by 
another method belong to another class. This principle of classifica- 
tion is perhaps the one most generally adopted. It gives rise, how- 
ever, really but to two classes, namely the positive and negative, i. e. 
those in which something is affirmed, and those in which something 
is denied concerning God. To the negative class are commonly re- 
ferred, simplicity, infinity, eternity, immutability ; to the positive 
class, power, knowledge, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth." 
Hodge, vol. 1, p. 375. 



The Simplicity of God. 

By this we mean, that the nature of God, comprising His essence 
and his attributes, is a simple or uncompounded pure spirit. 

It means more than His unity — for the latter expresses only the 



Abstract of Theology. 70 

fact that there is but one Being, that is God. Were God both matter 
and spirit, or compounded in any other way, His unity would not be 
affected. 

Were there but one man in the world, we should ascribe to him 
unity, and if there could be but one, we should ascribe essential unity. 

It means more than the spirituality of God, for that includes only 
that He must be spiritual, and, also, as we have seen, that He should 
be purely spiritual. 

But there is nothing contradictory in the idea, that created spirits 
might have a composite spiritual nature, composed, for example, of 
mind, soul and spirit as three distinct essences, or that a spiritual nature 
should have a spiritual body as well as a spiritual soul. 

But in God there can be no composition, and therefore His spiritual 
nature must be uneompounded. Even His attributes and His nature 
must be in such a manner one that His attributes essentially inhere 
in that nature and are not capable of separation from it, which 
really makes them one with that nature. 

1. Because composition (or a putting together,) involves possibilty 
of separation. But this would involve destructibility, and change- 
ableness, each of which is inconsistent with absolute perfection and 
necessary existence. 

2. Composition involves a time of separate existence of the parts 
compounded. If so, then there was a time when God did not exist, 
because the parts of His nature had not been united, or, when He existed 
imperfectly, not having yet received to His essential nature the 
additions subsequently made ; all of which is inconsistent with abso- 
lute perfection and necessary existence 

3. If the parts have been compounded, it has been done by some 
force from without or has been a growth in His nature. They have not 
been added from without; because God is independent and therefore 
cannot be affected from without. And besides all outward form and 
all else besides God had its origin in Him, and He existed as God 
before it. They have not been a growth in Him, for if so, he is not 
unchangeable. Any such addition to God or growth in Him is also 
inconsistent with absolute perfection and necessary existence. 

In ascribing simplicity to God, therefore we declare that His nature 
is so purely or simply one, as not to be compounded of separate 
substances as matter and spirit, or even of the same substances in dif- 
ferent forms, or a substance with separable attributes, and we assert 
that even His attributes are one with His essence, and that He is not 
only essentially spiritual, but also essentially wise and good, and holy 
and just, and true, and almighty, and omnipotent. 



71 Abstract of Theology. 

Infinity of God. 

When we say that, God is infinite, we deny to him all limitation in 
His nature or essence. We are conscious of the finite nature of our 
soul as well as of oar body; it has limitations as to place, time 
and capabilities. In arriving at the idea of the perfect being by way of 
negation, we deny all such limitation in Him, and therefore ascribe to 
Him infinity as to time, and space, as well as infinite perfection, in His 
mode of existence, in His power, wisdom, goodness, justice, holiness 
and truth. 

The infinity of God as to time is called 
His Eternity. 
By this we mean, 

1. That He has no beginning nor end. 

2. That with Him there is no succession of moments. 

It is difficult to attain any conception of the mode of existence which 
is thus ascribed to Him. It is so different from our own. Yet a brief 
consideration of what is involved in the nature of God must convince 
us that the idea which we express by these statements is just and 
true. 

(1.) As to the statement that He has no beginning or end. 

When we say, that we shall live forever, we can understand how a 
life once begun, may never be completed. 

But it is difficult to conceive of a life which goes back equally for- 
ever as one may go forward. The past is always completed, and as 
completed must be measurable. That which has been by succession 
of moments, or days, must have had some first day, or moment with 
which it began. We can form no other conception of it. 

That division of eternity, therefore which is called eternity a parte 
post, we can comprehend; but the complement of it, the eternity a 
parte ante which is united with it to express infinite duration, is felt 
at once to be an attempted conception of the mind, to express some- 
thing which we know must be true and yet which we perceive is in- 
adequately conceived as well as expressed. 

While, therefore, we know that God has had no beginning, we see 
that His mode of existence cannot have been one in which He has 
had in the past, that infinite duration, which corresponds to what may 
be ours in the future. 



Abstract of Theology. 72 

Again. When we say that, in reference to any period, any being 
has always existed, and will always exist, we mean, that there has not 
only been no moment in that period when he has not existed, but 
that during that period he has been and will be existent in a constant 
succession of moments. There is at all times, after the beginning, a 
past; and present, and will be, until the end, a future. One moment 
passes away, and another succeeds. But with God there can be no 
succession of moments. 

(1.) Because then He would have had a beginning, which is op- 
posed to His infinity. 

(2.) Because then He would not be unchangeable, for that would 
be true of Him to-day, which was not yesterday and will not be to- 
morrow. 

(3.) He would not be perfect. Because something could be added 
to him from day to day, He would become older, He would have new 
experience. Indeed there would be either increase or diminution of 
His power, wisdom, &c, &c. 

The schoolmen attempted to express the eternity of God by saying 
that it is punctum stans, or nunc semper stans. The poet Cowley 
thus expresses it, 

"Nothing there is to come, and nothing past, 
But an eternal Now does always last." 

This is the conception of eternity which we strive to attain. Oar dif- 
ficulty in doing so is that we can no more conceive of duration with- 
out succession, than we can of an eternity a parte ante But we see 
that, in this conception, we are not arriving at a thought in itself erro- 
neous, as in the other case, but are simply recognizing the fact that 
God's mode of existence, as to time, is different from ours. 

Ours has succession of moments, increase in the length of the period, 
is not all of it possessed at the same time, has had beginning and 
might have an end, and has a past and future as well as present. 

God has no succession, no increase of life, is possessed of the whole 
of His existence at once, and eternally possessed, has had no beginning, 
can have no end, and lives in the present only, having no past or 
future. 

This accords with the statements of scripture. God is always 
spoken of in the present. 

He calls himself I am. His name Jehovah has been supposed mys- 
tically to express this. 

In Ps. 90:2. "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou 
hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to ever- 
lasting, thou art God." 



73 Abstract of Theology. 

Thus our Lord when He would declare his equality with the father 
uses the present tense for each. "My father worketh hitherto, and I 
work." 

So also in like manner He declared His Divinity by saying ''Before 
Abraham was, / am." 

A question arises, what then is the relation of time and eternity to 
each other. 

Time is not a part of eternity, for if it were, eternity must have 
succession, viz : before time, during time, after time. 

They are in reality different modes of existence which are unlike 
each other, time being suited to the measurement of creation periods 
and creature life. True eternity belongs only to the life of God. 

While time however is not a part of eternity it co-exists with it. 

Through the divine purpose all its events have been eternally pre- 
sent with God, and as well known and realized by Him, as though 
actually existent. And, in the actual existence of time, it has been 
present actually with God, and eternity, although not constituting a 
part of eternity. 

The nature of these relations we cannot understand. Our ideas are 
vague, and the language, in which we would convey them is incapable 
of expressing even what we perceive and know. But while this, 
is true, we have no question as to the possibility of better knowledge 
in the future on this point. The difficulty is in reality no greater 
than in the connection between the immensity and omnipresence of God. 
Yet, from the knowledge of the presence of our spirits, as compared 
with that of our bodies, we comprehend the fact of the omnipresence 
of God with all created things, while the space in which they exist is 
no more a part of His immensity than is time a part of His eternity. 

Corresponding to the infinity of God in respect to time is His in- 
finity, in respect to space which is called 

His Immensity. 

God is not confined to space any more than He is measured by 
time. 

Space must have its limitations because its existence is commen- 
surate only with the universe. Where there is no creation, there can 
be no space nor time. But creation cannot be infinite, but must have 
its bounds, impossible as it may be for us to imagine the non-existence 
of space. In our mode of existence, space and time are so necessary 
that we cannot even deny their existence without using words which 



Abstract of Theology. 74 

involve that existence. Thus if I say, "Where there is no universe, 
there is no space," the very words "where" and "there" involve the 
notion of space. 

But withal this, we know that, just as time is the period, so is space 
the location, in which creation exists. 

When therefore we speak of God's immensity, we mean more 
than his filling all space just as when we speak of His eternity, we 
mean more than His existing throughout all time. 

We can only express the idea by the fiction of infinite space as 
in the other, we have done by that of infinite time. 

Immensity is an absolute attribute of God to which corresponds 
the relative one 

His Omnipresence. 

By this word we express the relation of God as present with 
creation. 

He is present everywhere. He is present at one and the same 
time everywhere. 

His presence is not merely contact, but energy, and power. 

It is not merely through his knowledge of it, or the exertion of 
His power upon it, but He fills it with His essence. 

He fills it, not as part to part, but the whole infinite deity is 
entirely undividedly present, at each point of creation, in each mo- 
ment of time. 

The following valuable questions and answers are taken from 
Hodge's Outlines of Theology, p. 141, of the new edition. 

"What are the different modes of the divine presence ?" 

God may be conceived of as present in any place, or with any 
creature, in several modes ; first, as to His essence ; second, as to 
His knowledge ; third, as manifesting that presence to any intelli- 
gent creature ; fourth, as exercising his power in or upon His crea- 
tures. As to essence and knowledge His presence is the same 
everywhere and always. As to his self manifestation and the exer- 
cise of His power, His presence differs endlessly in different cases, 
in degree and mode. Thus God is present to the church as He is 
not to the world. Thus He is present in hell in the manifestation 
and execution of righteous wrath, while He is present in heaven 
in the manifestation and communication of gracious love and glory. 

How may it be proved that He is everywhere present as to his 
essence ? 



75 Abstract of Theology. 

That God is everywhere present as to His essence is proved from 
Scripture. 1. Kings 8:27. ' Ps. 139=7-10. Isaiah 66:1. Acts 17=27.28. 
And from reason. (1.) It follows necessarily from His infinitude. 
(2.) From the fact that His knowledge is His essence knowing, and His 
actions are His essence acting, yet His knowledge and His power 
reach to all things. 

State the different relations that bodies, created spirits and God 
sastain to space. 

Turretine sa}s = "Bodies are conceived of as existing in space circum- 
scriptively because, occupying a certain portion of space, they are 
bounded by space upon every side. Created spirits do not occupy 
any portion of space, nor are they embraced by any, they are how- 
ever in space definitely as here and not there. God on the other 
hand is in space repletively, because in a transcendent manner His 
essence fills all space. He is included in no space; He is excluded 
from none. Wholly present to each point He comprehends all space 
at once." 



Abstract of Theology. 76 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE VII 



The Immutability of God. 

The immutability of God makes him incapable of change, either in 
duration, which is involved in His eternity, or in nature, character, 
will, or happiness. In none of these, nor in any other respects is there 
possibility of change. 

1. This is implied in His absolute perfection. Perfection permits 
neither increase, as though He lacked, nor decrease, as though He 
could lose. Change must be for the worse, or for the better, but God 
cannot become worse, nor better. 

2. It arises, in like manner, from the pure simplicity of His nature. 
That which is not, and cannot be, compounded, cannot be changed. 

3. It is expressly taught by the Scriptures in several particulars. 
(a.) They declare Him to be unchangeable in life. Gen. 21:33. 

He is called "the Lord the everlasting God." So also in Rom. 16:26. 
Deut. 32:39,40. "See now that I, even I, am He, and there is no god 
with me ; I kill, and I make alive ; I wound, and I heal ; neither is 
there any, that can deliver out of my hand. For I lift up my hand 
to heaven, and say, I live forever." In Ps. 55:19, He is called "God, 
* * * even He that abideth of old." Also, Ps. 90:1, "From 
everlasting to everlasting thou art God." In Ps. 102:12, and in Ps. 
9:7, we have, "Lord, shall endure for ever." In Habakkuk 1:12, the 
Prophet asks : "Art thou not from everlasting Lord my God, mine 
Holy one?" 

1. Tim. 1:17. "Unto the king eternal, immortal, invisible, the only 
wise and true God." 

1. Tim. 6:16. "Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light 
which no man can approach." 



77 Abstract of Theology. 

(b.) They declare Him unchangeable in His nature. 

Mai. 3:6. 'T am the Lord, I change not." 

Rom. 1:23. "And changed the glory of the incorruptible God." 

James 1:17. "The Father of lights with whom is no variableness, 
neither shadow of turning." 

Ps. 104.31. "The glory of the Lord shall endure forever." 

(c.) Unchangeable in His will. 

Ps. 33:12. "The counsel of the Lord standeth forever, the thoughts 
of His heart to all generations." 

Prov. 19:21. "There are many devices in a man's heart; neverthe- 
less, the counsel of the Lord, that shall stand." 

Being even independent of the will of others. 

Job. 23:13. "But He is in one mind, and who can turn Him? and 
what His soul desireth, even that He doeth." 

(d.) Unchangeable in His character. 

In Sis Justice. 

Gen. 18:25. "Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" 
• Job 8:3. "Doth God pervert judgment? or doth the Almighty per- 
vert justice ?" Similar to this is Job 34:12. 

Rom. 2:2. "We are sure that the judgment of God is according to 
truth." 

In His Mercy. 

Mai. 3:6. "I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of 
Jacob are not consumed." 

Exodus 34:7. "Keeping mercy for thousands." 

Deut. 4:31. "For the Lord thy God is a merciful God; He will 
not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy 
fathers which He sware unto them." 

Ps. 107:1. "For His mercy endureth forever." 

Lam. 3:22,23. "It is of the Lord's mercies that we are not con- 
sumed, because His compassions fail not. They are new every morning; 
great is thy faithfulness." 
n In His Truth. 

Deut. 23:19. "God is not man that He should lie; neither the son 
of man, that He should repent." 

1. Sam. 15:29. "The strength of Israel will not lie nor repent ; for 
he is not a man that He should repent." 

Rom. 11:2. "God hath not cast away his people whom He foreknew." 

Rom. 3=3. "For what if some did not believe ? shall their unbelief 
make the faith of God without effect." 



Abstract of Theology. 78 

Micah 7:20. "Thou wilt perform the truth to Jacob, and the mercy 
to Abraham, which thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of 
old." 

2. Tim. 2:13. "If we believe not, yet He abideth faithful, He can- 
not deny himself." 

Titus 1:2. "In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, pro- 
mised before the world began." 

Eom. 11=29. "The gifts and calling of God, are without repent- 
ance." 

In His Holiness. 

Job 34:10. "Far be it from God that He should do wickedness, and 
from the Almighty, that He should commit iniquity." 

James 1:13. "God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth 
he any man." 

Hab. 1:13. "Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst 
not look on iniquity. 

In his knowledge. 

Acts 15:18. "Known unto God are all His works from the begin- 
ning of the world." 

Isaiah 40:13,14. "Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or 
being His counsellor, hath taught Him? with whom took He counsel, 
and who instructed Him, and caught Him in the path of judgment, 
and taught Him knowledge and shewed to Him the way of under- 
standing." And so on, to the end of the 40th chapter, especially in 
verse 28, "there is no searching of His understanding." 



I. It is objected to the immutability of God, that a change must 
have taken place in Him in the creation of the universe. It is claimed 
that He, then, must have formed a new purpose, and must have passed 
from a state of rest to one of activity. 

(a ) But this objection is based upon a forgetfulness of the fact, that 
in Him there is no succession, and no change from one moment to 
another. The creation of the universe is no less an outward act, than 
is the time in which it has existence. It "appears in time and with 
time. But with God there is no time, and no relation of time, exclu- 
sive of time itself. There was not before its creation. There will not 
be when there shall be no more time in creation. We may not be 
able to understand how this is, but we know that the fact must be so. 



79 Abstract of Theology. 

It is on this account, that the purpose of God to create, was not 
a new one formed at one time, and not at another. On the contrary, 
that purpose, and indeed His whole will is eternal. Whatever may 
have given rise to that purpose, does not exclude this fact. 

(b.) There was nothing outside to influence Him. He was moved 
entirely by His own will. Whether, that will was altogether volun- 
tary, or arose from some necessity in His nature, we need not now 
consider. If it was either the one or the other, in either event it was 
eternal, for if His nature be eternal, then any necessity of His nature 
is an eternal necessity, and any purpose He forms of necessity, or vol- 
untarily, must be an eternal volition. So much for the objection based 
upon a supposed new purpose. 

That from a transition from rest to labour is equally baseless. It 
supposes labour and toil in God. But the scripture account of crea- 
tion, as well as the dictates of reason forbid this. There was no la- 
borious work of God. There never is, there never can be. His in- 
finite power compasses His infinite will, in the mere wishing. And, 
as in the creation, so also in the sustentation of the universe, there is 
in God none of that busy careful thought, and protracted weary effort 
by which man maintains government, or sustains the lives of those de- 
pendent on Him. 

This view of God's creation accords with reason. It alone is worthy 
of an all wise, all powerful, independent and self existent God. 

It is established by Scripture. Heb. 11:3. "Through faith we un- 
derstand that the worlds were made by the word of God, so that things 
which are seen, were not made of things which do appear." 

The whole account of the creation in Genesis, Chap. 1-1 to chap. 2:3 
is full of this truth. In every case it is simply, "And God said," &c. 

Psalm 33:9. "For He spake, and it was done, he commanded and 
it stood fast." 

When it is said, that He rested on the seventh day, no more is im- 
plied than that He ceased as to further creation ; for the sustenta- 
tion of the universe requires constantly the same exercise of power and 
will as its creation. 



II. It is again objected, that the Scriptures represent change in 
God, when they speak of Him as "repenting." Thus they say : 



Abstract of Theology. 80 

Gen. 6=6. "And it repented the Lord that He had made man on 
the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart." 

1. Sam. 15:25. ,( And the Lord repented that He had made Saul 
King over Israel." 

Ps. 106:35. "And He remembered for them, his covenant and re- 
pented according to the multitudes of His mercies." 

Amos 7=3. "The Lord repented for this = It shall not be saith the 
Lord." 

Jonah 3=10. "And God repented of the evil, that He had said, that 
He would do unto them." 

In reply to this objection it may be stated, that these are merely 
anthropopathic expressions, intended simply, to impress upon men his 
great anger at sin, and his warm approval of the repentance of those, 
who had sinned against Him. The change of conduct, in men, not in 
God, had changed the relations between them and God. Sin had 
made them liable to his just displeasure. Repentance had brought 
them within the possibilities of His mercy. Had He not treated them 
differently, then there would have been change in Him. His very 
unchangeableness makes it necessary that He shall treat differently, 
those who are innocent, and those who are guilty, those who harden 
themselves against Him, and those who turn toward Him for mercy 
with repentant hearts. So far as the first of these passages is con- 
cerned, it is simply a protest against the great wickedness into which 
the great race of man has fallen. The scriptures show that God has 
had a purpose, with reference to such sin, which from the beginning 
contemplated the fall of man, and the different stages of wickedness 
by which in various ages that fall has been accompanied. 

III. Again it has been objected, that God must be changeable or He 
could not answer prayer. It is said, if His purposes stand forever 
and He changes not His will, then there is no place for prayer. 

It is unquestionably true, that God promises to answer prayer. 
It is also true, that prayers have been answered, and that the course 
of human events has thus been different from what it would have 
been, had there been no prayer and no answer to it. 

But the mistake arises from supposing that there has been change 
in God's purpose or action from what He always contemplated. 

The difficulty is not one that affects prayer only. It arises as well 
in connection with labour, or with any other act, by which through 
man, a new force is introduced into the universe. 



81 Abstract of Theology. 

It proceeds from the fact that man, being a voluntary agent, may 
act according to choice at any moment of his life. That choice puts 
his action outside of the mere mechanical movements of the universe. 
Over these it is admitted that God has absolute control, and that His 
purpose relative to them has no change. But it is thought, that if 
man can choose one. thing, or another, or can do, or not do, any spe- 
cial act he pleases, then so much of the future being dependent and 
resultant from his act or volition, God must change His purpose to 
correspond with that act or volition. 

To this it may be replied that even without explanation we know, 
that such cannot be the case, for this would take away the indepen- 
dence of God. It would make His volitions dependent upon those of 
man. If it be therefore true, that man cannot be a free agent, without 
such mechanical action, on his part, as would leave God free, we know 
that free agency does not belong to him. But we are so fully con- 
scious of our free agency, that, that consciousness becomes to us the 
highest revelation from God that it has real existence. If prayer then 
be offered the only doubt about it, as a power and force, the effect of 
which does not change, is whether God answers it. And, in His word 
He has so plainly taught this, as to leave no room for doubt. 

In what aspect, then, are we to regard prayer. Evidently in this 
simple way, that it is a secondary cause, which has a place, like all 
other secondary causes, which, like other such, is necessary to produce 
the result, to which God has given means of efficient entrance into the 
working of the universe, the existence of which has been as fully known 
and purposed as any other secondary cause, and the presence of which 
can in no way take God by surprize, nor render any new purpose or 
action on His part necessary. So far then from changing His pur- 
pose when He answers prayer, God is in reality only carrying out 
that purpose. But, even, if we be not able to explain how any will, 
or act of ours, can be at the same time as fixed and certain with God, 
as if it were a decree about some mechanical action of the universe, or 
were his own personal purpose, and at the same time be perfectly vol- 
untary with man, so that he can, either, will, or not will, do, or 
not do, as he may himself choose, we are perfectly sure that it must 
be so, from our consciousness of ourselves, and our certainty of what is 
the nature of God. 

IV. It is further objected, that there was change in God, in 
the act of the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity- 



Abstract of Theology. 82 

I meet this objection here, because the most suitable place in our 
course to do so, though the explanations may not be comprehended 
fully, until we have discussed the Trinity, and the relations of the 
persons of the Godhead in it. 

It is based upon a misconception of the Scripture doctrine of the 
incarnation. 

1. It was not the divine nature, which became incarnate, but 
simply one of the persons subsisting in it. 

2. No change took place in the divine nature. The human and 
divine natures of the Son of God were so related to Him, and to 
each other, that while He was truly God and truly man, possessing 
every characteristic of each, the two natures remained entirely dis- 
tinct, each, with its own peculiarities and properties. The divine 
nature was in no degree affected. The Son of God therefore, was 
as truly divine after, as before the incarnation. 

3. So distinct were these natures, that in becoming man, the 
Son took not simply a human body, but also a human soul. These 
were united with the personality with which He subsists in the 
divine nature, but not with the divine nature itself. Christ lacked 
nothing to make Him as separate from God as^ any other man, ex- 
cept human personality. He united His human nature to himself 
by subsisting in it in the same personality with which He subsists in 
the divine nature. 

4. The Son has not divine nature separate from the Father and 
the Spirit, so that we can say His divine nature in the exclusive 
sense, in which we speak of the human nature of Paul and Peter. 
Human nature is distributed among individual men, so that each 
one has his own, and in no wise partakes with another. But the 
one divine nature is common to the three persons. 

These statements will show, why God has not been changed in 
the act of incarnation. 

(1.) There would have been change, had the human nature been so 
united to the divine, as to add to it such qualities, properties and 
conditions as do not belong to God. These may be possessed by a 
divine person in the human nature He has assumed, for thus is there 
no change in His nature as God, but they cannot be transferred 
to the divine nature without making it finite as well as infinite, 
material as well as spiritual, fallible as well as infallible, mortal 
as well as immortal. These contradictory states may exist in the 
one person, but cannot in any such compounded nature. 



83 Abstract of Theology. 

(2.) There would have been change, had the divine nature be- 
come the soul of the human nature. This would have made that 
nature subject to human passions, and appetites, to human frailties 
and imperfections, and liable to pain, suffering, and temptation and 
to limitation in goodness, knowledge, power and wisdom. 

The knowledge therefore of the true doctrine of the incarnation 
shows conclusively, that in it there has been no change in God. 

V. It is alleged, that God cannot be without change, because He 
suffered during the incarnation of Christ. 

The argument is that the declarations about Christ's suffering 
are made, not simply of the human nature, but of both natures com- 
bined, and that thus we are taught, that it was not merely man, but 
God also that suffered. This position is assumed by some, who main- 
tain that Christ had a complete human, as well as divine nature, 
not a mere human body, but also a rational soul. It is neces- 
sarily also the position of those, who claim that He had no human 
soul, but that His divine nature took the place of a rational soul. 

The reply to this argument is that the Scripture statements do not 
teach that the divine nature suffered. This is nowhere said. They 
teach that the second person of the Trinity, who became man, suffered. 
But they plainly refer that suffering to His human nature only. They 
teach us, that in the relations of His natures to His person, He pre- 
served unchanged the properties and qualities, which belonged to 
them separately, and that this was especially true of the divine na- 
ture. There were indeed some communications from the divine 
nature to the human, but none from the human to the divine. But 
while thus distinct, they were united together in a single personality 
and by such a union, that whatever might be said, to be true or to 
be done, or to be suffered by either of the natures, might in like man- 
ner be affirmed of the person in whom they were united. It is be- 
cause of this, that Christ, the son of God, is said to have suffered. 
He did this in His human, though not in His divine nature. The 
scripture declarations that Christ suffered, are no proof that God suf- 
fered, or that God can change in this respect. 

But there are those, who do not receive the above statements as an 
exposition of the teachings of Scripture on this point. They claim, as 
necessary, an interpretation which asserts suffering of the divine na- 
ture. Those indeed, who hold that the Divine nature is in the place 



Abstract of Theology. 84 

of the human soul are forced to maintain such an interpretation. It is 
in reply to both of these, that the unchangeableness of the divine nature 
is presented as conclusive against any such interpretation. Against 
their position are adduced the numerous statements of Scripture assert- 
ing that God does not change, and that He is immutable in His nature, 
and in His various perfections, as well as the arguments from reason, 
by which the same truth is maintained. So incontestable are these 
statements and reasonings that the objectors readily admit, that there 
is no power or being, who can change God contrary to His will, and 
that the idea of enforced suffering is revolting. The possibility of 
change and suffering in God, they conceive therefore to result from 
His own will and His own voluntary choice. 

This raises the question of the possibility of voluntary suffering on 
the part of God. 

If this be possible, it must arise in one of two ways; either the na- 
ture of God is essentially such as to admit suffering, or the will of God 
is capable of so changing his nature for a time, as to enable it to suffer. 
In the first instance the essence of God itself is supposed to remain 
unchanged, but to be capable of existing in different states at the dic- 
tation of His will. In the other, the essence itself is changed by the 
will, and made capable of that, which otherwise it could not have. 

In the first case God could suffer, because of the contingent condi- 
tions of His life liable to the action of His will, just as we can inflict 
suffering upon ourselves. 

In the last case, the nature of God would be so dependent on His 
will that He could change it at pleasure. 

This last view however is based upon an erroneous conception of 
the relation of the will of God to His nature. That relation is not 
causal. The will does not create the nature nor confer upon it 
its powers, nor exercise a controlling influence upon it. It is the 
nature that influences the will. It is because He is holy, just 
and good that He wills holiness, justice and goodness, and wills 
these in Himself, because He alone is the infinitely holy, just and 
good. His will therefore, so far from causative is only approbative 
and complacent, and His essence can in no degree be affected by it. 
If this were not so, the nature of God, must be the effect of the will of 
God as a cause and must be dependent upon that will. The founda- 
tion of all excellence, righteousness and holiness would be, not what 
God is, but what He happens to will at one time, and would be yet 



85 Abstract of Theology. 

again at another, should He will differently as to Himself. And 
such will would be capricious;. for in making the will superior to the 
nature, there is taken away all reason for choice in God, to good or ill, 
or in one direction or another, and He is left, without motive, to acci- 
dental or capricious volition only. Morever, if God is capable of this 
kind of change in any respect, He is so in all others, for the power of 
the will to effect one modification in the divine nature, necessarily 
involves the power to effect any or all other such. 

As the will therefore cannot change the essence of God, but is 
itself controlled by that essence, it is not possible, that it can con- 
fer the power to suffer, which otherwise God would not have. If 
therefore this power of suffering be not inherent in the divine na- 
ture, it can have no existence. 

But if this be inherent in the divine nature, it must be a quality 
necessarily, and constantly belonging to the nature of God, and 
must therefore be destructive of the blessedness so fully, and emi- 
nently ascribed to God in the Scriptures, or it must exist there 
after the manner of the contingent conditions of our life because 
of which we can pass from a state of happiness into one of suffer- 
ing, and back to happiness again; and its passage from one of these 
states to the other, must be the result of the exercise of a divine 
volition. 

But with God there can be no such contingent conditions. 

1. The very nature of His necessary existence forbids it. The 
language of scripture "I change not," and "with whom there is no 
variableness, neither shadow of turning" is expressly contrary to 
such a supposition. 

2. The contrast between God and men in respect to change, is 
distinctly based upon that contingency in man, to which there is 
no similarity in God. 

3. The truth 'and faithfulness of God are magnified by the fact 
of their exercise where man would thus change, but where God 
does not, because He is fixed and constant. The passage, "I change 
not" is presented in a context, where the will of God might be 
presumed to induce change, and the essertion that this is His nature 
is made to show why that will would not so effect Him. 

4. In addition to all of this, such contingent conditions or states 
are incompatible with the nature of His eternity, which, as being 



Abstract of Theology. 86 

without succession, excludes change, as well as with His simplicity 
which denies separation between His essence arid His attributes, and 
therefore gives no room for change, while they are absolutely excluded 
by the perfection of God, which cannot be always asserted of Him 
if the states or conditions of His being can be changed, unless in all 
these states, He could be equally perfect in all respects, which 
surely cannot be affirmed of the two states of happiness and suf- 
fering. 



Abstract of Theology. 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE VIII. 



THE POWER OF GOD. 

We derive our knowledge of power from the consciousness of our 
will, or purpose, to effect an end, and experience that we have accomp- 
lished that end. 

Over our own bodies, our will acts directly, without the interven- 
tion of any means known to us. Thus, when we will to move the arm, 
the arm is moved, but whatever necessity there may be, of nervous 
influence or muscular action, we know of no such connection between 
these and our will, save the fact, that the will puts these into opera- 
tion. 

< Over other material objects, we can only act through our bodies, 
and other necessary means of contact. 

Experience teaches us however, that mind can act upon mind with- 
out such contact, though the mode in which this is done is still mys- 
terious. 

The action of our minds upon our material structure, and over other 
minds, a ] so suggests that mind, by some subtle connection, may act 
upon outward matter, as we see, that our minds act upon our bodies. 

In this way many of the curious phenomena, which have been 
falsely used for the proof of the spiritualistic theories of the present 
day, will probably be accounted for. 

But, whatever may be the power of man, it is evident, that it is 
marked by limitations, not only as to what can be done, but also as to 
the way in which it may be done. 

In ascribing power to God however, we must exclude all such limi- 
tation. Not only is He all powerful, (Almighty) but Tie needs not 
instrumental contact. 



89 Abstract of Theology. 

But, although this is true, God accomplishes much that He does 
through secondary means, which partake of the nature of instrumen- 
tal contact. Such action however is, with Him, not a matter of neces- 
sity, but simply His economic way of doing what He could, as per- 
fectly, and as easily, do by direct action. 

Power in God, therefore, may be denned to be the effective energy, 
inherent in His nature, by which He is able to do all things. The 
exercise of that power is dependent upon His will or purpose, and is 
limited not by what He can do, but by what He chooses to do. 

We ascribe power to God. 

1. Because we perceive that its possession is a. perfection in us, 
and is therefore to be attributed to the all-perfect Being. 

2. Because we cannot account for the existence and phenomena 
of the universe, without ascribing to God the power which has pro- 
duced them. 

3. Because our own sense of depen dance assures us that there 
must be power to create, preserve, and protect us, in Him in Whom 
we live, and move, and have our being. 

4. The Scriptures also teach us to ascribe power to God. 

(a.) In such passages as directly ascribe power to Him, as Jer. 
32:17. "Ah ! Lord God, behold thou hast made the heaven and the 
earth by thy great power, and stretched-out arm, and there is nothing 
too hard for thee." 

Ps. 115:3. "But our God is in the Heavens: He hath done, what- 
soever He hath pleased." 

Eph. 1:19. "And, what is the exceeding greatness of His power 
to us-ward, who believe according to the working of His mighty 
power." 

Eph. 3:20. "Now unto Him, that is able to do, exceeding abun- 
dantly above all that we ask or think." 

(b.) By reference to His unlimited works. 

Jer. 10:12. "He hath made the earth by His power, He hath es- 
tablished the world by His wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens 
by His discretion." 

John 1:3. "All things were made by Him, and without Him, was 
not anything made that was made." 

Acts 17 : 24. "God, that made the world and all things therein." 

(c.) By declaring that what He does is done by mere will, without 
labour, by His word, as in Gen. 1:1 to Gen. 2'-3, the whole account of 
creation. 



Abstract of Theology. 90 

Ps. 33=9. "For He spake, and it was done, He commanded, and it 
stood fast." • 

(d.) By denying the. necessity of great means, and asserting that 
what He does, can be done with the many or the few. 

1. Sam. 14=6. "There is no restraint to the Lord, to save by many 
or by few." 

2. Chron. 14:11. "Lord it is nothing with thee to help, whether 
with many, or with them that have no power." 

(e.) By figurative or anthropomorphic expressions, as "the hand," 
"the right hand of God," "the strong hand," "the arm, v "the arm not 
shortened." 

Exodus 15:6. "Thy right hand, oh Lord, has become glorious in 
power ; thy right hand, Lord, hath dashed to pieces the enemy." 

Numbers 11:23. "Is the Lord's hand waxed short?" 

Joshua 4:24. "That all the people of the earth might know the 
hand of the Lord, that it is mighty." 

Neh. 1:10. "Whom thou hast redeemed by thy great power, and by 
thy strong hand." 

Job 40:9. "Hast thou an arm like God?" 

Ps. 98:1. "His right hand, and His Holy arm, hath gotten Him 
the victory." 

Is. 50:2. "Is my hand shortened at all, that it cannot redeem?" 

Is. 59:1. ''The Lord's hand is not shortened that it cannot save." 



God's power may be described as, 

I. Absolute, which is equivalent to what He can do, and is mea- 
sured by His nature. 

IL Actual, which is what He exercises, and is measured by His 
will. It is, what is put in action by Him. 

Knapp makes a division of absolute and ordinate, making the abso- 
lute that, by which He created the world out of nothing, and the ordi- 
nate that, by which He continues to create or produce according to 
the laws He has established, as by secondary causes, as in the pro- 
duction of plants, animals, &c. But these are different kinds of exer- 
cise of power, but not different kinds of power. 

Our power differs from that of God in three particulars. 

1. We cannot do whatever we choose, even if it be right. 

2. We cannot do it without intermediate means. 



91 Abstract of Theology. 

3. We cannot do it at any moment we please, but only when the 
circumstances favour. 

But, while God is not subject to the limitations which thus affect us, 
He also is limited in His power. These limitations, however, are such 
as arise, not from without, bat from the excellence, and perfection of 
His own nature. Hence the limitations are concurrent with His will, 
which can never desire to do what His nature does not permit. 

1. God cannot create a being or world to which His essential in- 
communicable attributes can be given, viz : Infinity, embracing eter- 
nity and immensity, and self existence. 

2. He cannot create a being whose nature is sinful. 

3. He cannot impose laws which are not accordant with righteous- 
ness and holiness, 

4. He cannot deal with any of His creatures unjustly. 

5. He cannot commit sin. 

6. He cannot change His own nature. 

7. He cannot change His decrees or purpose. 

8. He cannot do impossibilities. 

If it be asked, why He can do none of these things, the answer is, 
because His own nature is to Him the law of what He does, as well 
as of what He wills, and of what He is. 

He is not just and holy because He wills to be so, but He wills to 
be just and holy, because He is so. His will does not make His na- 
ture. But His nature controls His will. 



An apparent objection to the infinite power of God is the presence 
of sin in the universe. 

The holiness, justice and even goodness of God render it impossible, 
that sin can be either created or permitted as something indifferent 
to God. He must hate it, and punish it wherever it appears. 

Its presence therefore is due, either to the fact that He could not 
prevent it, or that He has permitted it for some wise purpose. 

What that wise purpose is, ought properly to be shown in proof 
that the existence of evil is consistent with God's goodness. 

That its presence is due to such purpose, rather than to lack oi 
power of God, appears from the fact, that He could have prevented it. 

1. By not creating beings capable of sinning. 



Abstract of Theology. 92 

2. By not allowing them to be placed in circumstances, which 
would lead to sin. 

3. By sustaining and fortifying them in those circumstances, so as 
to counteract the temptation and keep them from sinning. 

4. And, as the objection is the rather to the continued existence of 
sin, than its origin, by the immediate destruction of those who have 
sinned. 

But so far from the presence of sin showing lack of power in God, 
it has served the more signally to display that power. 

1. Over sin itself, in its destruction and punishment. 

2. Over its final victims, by causing them to feel and acknowledge 
the terrible power of His wrath. 

3. Over others, by their signal deliverance through His power, 
not only from the penalty, but from the presence of sin. 

4. In the sin itself, by exhibiting that restraining and conquering 
power, by which God makes evil itself to work out His purposes of 
good and glory. 



Abstract of Theology. 94 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY 



LECTURE IX. 



The Knowledge of God. 

God is an intelligent Being possessed of knowledge. 
This may be proved, 

1. From His spirituality; for intelligence is an essential element 
of spiritual existence. 

2. From His perfection; for the perfect one must have intelligence 
as one of His perfections. 

3. From His causal relations to other beings. 

(1.) As the cause of mental powers and action in others, He must 
Himself be possessed of mind. As the Scriptures aptly inquire, "He 
that planteth the ear, shall he not hear ? he that formed the eye, shall 
he not see?" Ps. 94:9 ; so may we ask, He, that made the mind and 
gave the power of thought, and knowledge, shall He be without intel- 
ligence. 

(2.) The effects He has produced show that they are the result of 
conscious action in the fulfilment of purpose, which He has formed. 
His causation is not like that of mechanical, or chemical forces, which 
operate with blind productiveness, or effective operation towards ends 
unknown to them, and not predetermined. This is possible to second- 
ary causes, because they are the instruments of some other cause, itself 
intelligent and purposing. But intelligence and purpose are neces- 
sarily present in Him, who is the great first cause, the prime mover 
and designer of all else that exists. All the evidences of design in 
creation therefore prove the intelligence of Him, who bears to it the 
relation of its first cause. 



95 Abstract of Theology. 

(4.) It is sometimes argued from His omnipresence, but omnipre- 
sence alone would not prove intelligence. His intelligence however 
having been established, His omnipresence enables us to determine the 
extent of His knowledge. 

How does God know ? or in what way does He possess knowledge? 

1. Not as we gain it, by using faculties fitted to acquire it. There 
is in Him nothing corresponding to observation, comparison, generali- 
zation, deduction, processes of reasoning by wnich we pass from one 
step to another, or the contemplation, or conjecture of suppositions, or 
theories with which we would account for facts. 

2. It is even improper to speak of His knowing by intuition, as is 
frequently done, 

3. All that we can say, is that His knowledge is His essence or 
nature knowing. It is not something acquired, but something belong- 
ing to that nature itself and identical with it, in like manner as are 
His love, and truth, and justice. It is something so inherent in his na- 
ture, that it exists exclusively of any means of attaining, or perceiving 
it, which we call action. 

4. The knowledge of God therefore not being acquired, cannot be in- 
creased. Time does not add to it. Succession of events does not 
bring it before God. All the objects of His knowledge are to Him 
eternally present and known. 

What then are the objects of His knowledge. 

1. Himself, His nature, or essence ; the personal relations subsist- 
ing in that essence ; all, that that nature is, and all that it can ap- 
pear to be in its manifestations; all that the purposes of God in- 
clude, and all that might be purposed by Him, whether to be done, 
or to be permitted. 

2. His creation in all its fulness; in its whole extent, whether 
marked by magnitude, or minuteness, or variety. The whole uni- 
verse with its innumerable worlds is ever before Him, while not an 
atom of dust, nor the most microscopic of sensitive existencies is unper- 
ceived thoroughly. 

3. Not merely inanimate matter, nor simple animal natures, but 
all spiritual beings, He knowing their essences which to them remain 
unknown, and having perfect perception of the intents and thoughts of 
their hearts. "When Thales was asked, if some of the actions of men 
were not unknown to God, he replied, "not even their thoughts." 
Knapp's Theology. An inspired writer has taught us, that God 
knows us even better, than we know ourselves ; "For if our heart con- 



Abstract of Theology. 96 

demn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things." 
1. John 3:20. His knowledge is not limited to the manifestations and 
operations of spiritual beings, but extends to their essences, and in- 
cludes not only what they are, but also those tendencies which indi- 
cate what they may be. 

4. He knows all the past, present, and future of all things, know- 
ing the future with the same certainty, and accuracy, with which He 
knows the present, and past ; for that future is already as present to 
Him as though actually existing with the creatures, and time belong- 
ing to it, and is as distinctly perceived as it shall be then. 

But more specifically as to His knowledge of future events it may 
be said, 

1. That He knows all events that, are certain or fixed. The cer- 
tainty that they will come to pass, is based upon His decree. He 
therefore, knows all things that shall come to pass. 

2. He knows all events that could possibly come to pass. This is 
based upon His infinite knowledge of Himself, and of all His creatures, 
by which all things, or events, which could at any time, or under any 
circumstances occur, are known to him. 

In these two classes are necessarily included all objects of know- 
ledge. 

Knapp lays down a third kind of knowledge, namely, the know- 
ledge of contingent events, or events which might take place under 
certain circumstances; for example, that God foresees, that if James 
lives until he is grown, he will commit murder, he therefore, deter- 
mines to prevent this by removing him from life. The knowledge of 
the murder, is here claimed to be that of a contingent event. And 
hence it is claimed to be another kind of knowledge. 

Bat to examine this. It is readily admitted, that the murder does 
not come under the classification of things certain, or decreed, because 
it will not take place. But, it does come under the head of things 
possible, and between it, and all other possible things, no distinction 
can be made. All possible things are contingent, until made 
certain by a decree. Every possible thing is only possible in 
connection with the circumstances under which it can happen. There 
is therefore no distinction, between possible things, and contingent 
things, and consequently no third class is to be added. 

The kind of knowledge, which he thus speaks of as contingent, is 
stated by Knapp, to be what is called Scientia Media. It is one form 
only, in which Scientia Media is presented by those who maintain it. 



97 Abstract of Theology. 

Another form of Scientia Media, is however held by some. Accord- 
ing to this, the future event to which it refers, is known to God as an 
event that will take place, but His knowledge of that fact is attained, 
not through His decree, but through His foreknowledge that, under 
certain circumst-iuces, a man will pursue one course of action, rather 
than another. 

This kind of Scientia Media teaches, 

(1.) The future event as certain. 

(2.) That God knows it as such. 

(3.) That this knowledge does not arise from His decree. 

(4 ) But, from His knowledge of the nature of the man, together 
with that of the circumstances that will surround Him, He knows 
that He will act in a particular way. 

The only question here, is as to the 3rd and 4th, for it agrees with 
the usual orthodox statement in saying, 1st, that it is certain, and 
2nd, that God knows it as such. 

But the 3rd and 4th assert that this knowledge is the result of a 
foreknowledge of God as to how a man will act under certain cir- 
cumstances, and this foreknowledge is necessarily accompanied by 
a determination to allow Him so to act. 

Now the question arises, is this universally the method of God's 
action? If it be so, then God has left the world entirely to itself, 
without any influence from Him. Everything has come to pass, 
not because of His will and action, but because He has left the 
general laws, under which He has placed the world, to work out 
their results, without any action, or influence on His part. 

But this is so manifestly untrue and unscriptural, that it never has 
been maintained by any christian men, and it is by christian writers 
only, that this idea of Scientia Media has been presented. 

This, therefore is denied to be meant by these; but they say that, 
while God does operate in, and interfere with the world, and carry 
on His own purposes, in certain matters, He does not choose in other 
events to exercise any influence, but simply refrains and leaves the events 
to work out their own effects, and that the knowledge which He has 
of these events is based upon the fact, that they will take place if 
He does not thus interfere. 

The theory thus presented, as will be seen, admits the con- 
tinued preservation of all things, with all their powers. This can 
only result from God's providential action, and involves all that 
concurrence with events on the part of God, through which alone 
they preserve and exercise effectively the powers He has given them. 



Abstract of Theology. 98 

This being admitted, then, the views held by these parties, stated in 
any 'form in which they could hold them, would involve no additional 
fact beyond the distinction, recognized by all orthodox divines, be- 
tween the absolute and permissive decrees of God. 

But, in any event there is a decree, determination, intention, pur- 
pose, or whatever else men may call it, in the broadest language, a 
will, or volition, to leave these things so to operate. And upon this 
will, or decree, is based His knowledge, that these things will be, for 
without the knowledge of such a purpose, how could He know that 
He will not, at some time, choose to change the circumstances, or pre- 
vent their accomplishment of the event. 

It will be seen, that in neither of the forms of Scientia Media 
thus far referred to, is there any serious disagreement from the truth. 
The objection to them is more the lack of accuracy and the mistaken 
notion that some new idea is involved ; or rather the great objec- 
tion has been, the purpose by which men have been led; viz, a desire 
to lay down the distinction of conditional decrees in salvation. Ac- 
cording to these decrees. 

(1.) God offers salvation to every man. 

(2.) But does not decree his salvation or damnation, 

(3.) But only decrees his salvation if he believes, 

(4.) Or his damnation, if he does not believe. 

(5.) That the knowledge, which God is admitted to have had of 
the event from the beginning, arises from foresight that, under the 
circumstances in which the man is placed, He will exercise, or will not 
exercise belief. 

The Scientia Media is therefore introduced, to show how an event 
can be known as something that will actually take place, and yet as 
something not fixed by a decree of God, and consequently known 
upon some other ground than because decreed. This we have shown 
to be a mistaken conception in the forms already examined. 

But a third kind of Scientia Media, is by no means as harmless as 
the two already presented, although its absurdity is readily seen. It 
is given in Dr. J. Pye Smith's First lines of Christian Theology, p. 145, 
as follows: 

"That God foresees all future events, depending upon the will of 
His voluntary agents, (i. e. all possible beings, and all possible actions 
of all possible beings,) under a position of antecedents endlessly varied 
and that, then, in every case, certain consequents will follow. The 
Deity does not certainly know which, in the endless number of possible 
antecedents, a voluntary creature will choose and practice; but He 



99 Abstract of Theology. 

knows, what will be the result under every possible variation of these 
antecedents ; when therefore, the creature has made his election, and 
fulfilled his course of action, the Deity may say, that He foreknew 
the whole." 

The objections to this scheme are manifest. 

1. It makes the God, whose purposes we see constantly manifested 
to us, a God of no purpose at all. He can have no end, He can only 
know, that, at any time given in the universe, some one end, of many 
myriads may be the one attained. 

2. It is contrary to the power to prophesy the actual events 
which shall happen at a given time, w r hich God has exercised through 
His prophets. 

3. It is opposed to His independence, for it makes Him dependent 
upon the will of His creatures, and not their actions dependent upon 
Him. 

4. It is opposed to His perfection, for that perfection forbids 
the idea of increase or addition from without, yet according to this 
view, His knowledge is constantly increasing, as to what is done by 
His creatures. Every moment that, which heretofore has been only 
one of many possibilities, becomes a certain event. 

5. As there can be no reason, for God's will not being effective, at 
least in some respects in man, this Scientia Media which rests upon the 
idea, that God ought not thus to operate on the mind, even by a pur- 
pose, must be a misconception. Else how could God bestow such in- 
fluences upon intelligent creatures as are fitted to affect their minds, 
as by the gift of Christ, or of the Spirit. Even the conscience within 
ought not to exercise its powers, nor even to exist in man. If it be 
said, that these would only operate with the free consent of the party, 
it may be replied, that such is the case with all the influences arising 
in connection with God's decrees. Is it said, that these are influences 
for good only? So also is it in connection with His decrees. The ef- 
fective decrees of God, by which He changes in any respect the will 
of His creatures, are altogether connected with influences for good. 
In all other respects, men are left to act as they please. But their 
action is known, and known because of God's decree, to leave them 
thus to act. 

6. That God should exert no influence over His intelligent crea- 
tures, also involves, that He be excluded from the physical universe. 
The very circumstances, under which men are supposed to act in 
Scientia Media, are circumstances arising from things around as well 
as within. Neither can He, who can control these circumstances, be 



Abstract of Theology. 100 

shut out from the control of those physical events, which He knows 
will affect the will of a voluntary agent. If it be necessary to re- 
sponsible freedom of the will, that man shall not be influenced at all, 
God must be excluded from the universe, yea every other being and 
thing than man. And every man must be completely, isolated from 
all others, even so far too, that he shall suppose, that He owes no ob- 
ligations of obedience, and that none shall know His action. These 
absurd conclusions might even be further extended. 

The passages in Scripture, supposed to support Scientia Media, do 
not sustain it. These are Genesis 3:22. Ex. 4:8. 1. Sam. 23:5,14. 
Jeremiah 38:17,20. Matt. 11:21,23. See also, Acts 27:22.31. 

The Wisdom of God. . 

Wisdom is that power, which enables one to put to practical use 
the knowledge, and skill, which He possesses, to choose wise ends 
of action, and to attain these ends by wise means. It is that guid- 
ance of the understanding, under which the will determines wisely its 
pleasure, and puts forth power to accomplish it. 

Wisdom in God. is infinite and unerring, choosing always the best 
end, and the best means of attaining it. It is seen in creation, and in 
providence, but is most signally manifested in redemption. 



Abstract of Theology. 102 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE X 



'Holiness, Goodness, Love and Truth. 

After the consideration of the wisdom, and knowledge of God, which 
correspond to the characteristics of our mental organism, we take 
up that of those attributes sometimes called moral, because they corres- 
pond to those which form our moral character. These are holiness, 
goodness, truth, and justice. 

Holiness. 

Holiness is, however, not a distinctive attribute, but rather the 
combination of all these attributes. We may suppose a being, in 
whom there may be love without justice, or truth, or any one of these 
to the exclusion of the other two ; but no being can be holy, who does 
not combine in himself all of these, and all other moral perfections. 
Nor, when we have such a combination, is there anything to be added 
to constitute holy character. It is evident, therefore, that holiness is 
the sum of all such excellence, the combination of all such attributes, 
and that these constitute its complete parts. 

In the study of these constituents, we first consider 

Goodness. 

In one aspect of this word, it is merely equivalent to holiness. If 
we look at it as marking the excellence of God's nature, as we often 
use it with reference to man, we mean by it simply holiness. Thus, 
when I say of any one, he is a good man, I mean to assert the com- 



103 Abstract of Theology. 

bination of traits of character, such as have just been pointed out as 
constituting holiness. This is the goodness which terminates in God 
Himself. 

On the other hand, the goodness of God may be spoken of as kind- 
ness, benevolence, or beneficence towards others, in w T hich it is seen to 
terminate outside of Himself. Thus we speak of Him, as being very 
good to us. Thus the Psalmist says: "Surely goodness and mercy, 
shall follow me all the days of my life." Ps. 23:6. 

It is on account of this ambiguity in this word, that it is best to con- 
sider it, in its first aspect, as merely holiness, and, therefore, as disposed 
of in what we have said of that, and to refer it in this second respect 
to one of the divisions, into which the love of God naturally falls. 

I therefore take up next 

Love. 

Of this there are five kinds, which vary according to the object 
upon which love is exercised. The attribute in God is the same; but 
it is in its exit, or in its termination, that it assumes these different 
forms. 

1. There is the love of complacency, or approbation. This is 
exercised towards a worthy object, in which excellencies are perceived. 
Itis of the nature of the love of the beautiful, or the good, or the useful 
in us. It complacently or approvingly regards, because there is in the 
object something worthy of such regard. 

This is exercised by God, in its highest degree, in the love of Him- 
self, of His own nature, and character, because the infinitely excellent 
must, to God, be the highest object of complacent love. 

Were God but one person, in this way only could such love be 
exercised. But in the Trinity of the Godhead, there is found, in the 
love of the separate persons towards each other, another mode in 
which this love of complacency may in this highest sense be exercised. 

Such love is also felt by God for His purposes. As He per- 
ceives them to be just, wise and gracious, He approves, and. regards 
them with complacent love. 

But this love extends itself also to the creations, which result from 
this purpose. 

This is true of inanimate creation. It is perfect, as far as conformed 
to His will, and fitted to accomplish His end, and as such God can 
regard it and pronounce it good. Thus we find, that He did in the 
creation. Genesis, Chap. 1:10,12. 



Abstract of Theology. 104 

The same record is made, in verse 25, as to the animal creation, 
before that of man; and, after the creation, and investiture of man in 
the dominion over the earth, with its plants and animals we are told, 
verse 31, "And God saw everthing that He had made, and behold it 
was very good." 

The complacent love of God, therefore extends not only to Himself 
and His will, but to all His innocent creation and even to inanimate 
nature. 

This love of complacency, however, as it is exercised in its highest 
degree towards Himself, so, also, is it exhibited, in the nearest approach 
to that, towards those beings, who are most like Himself, having been 
made 'in His nature and likeness. Innocent angels, and innocent man 
are therefore by nature a joy to God, as is the child to the father who 
sees in it a peculiar likeness to himself. 

But the guilty cannot thus be lo.ved. Sinful man cannot receive 
such love, so long as sinful. Even the penitent believer in Jesus, until 
the time of his perfect sanctification in the life to come, and perhaps 
even then, has access to God only through Christ, and, of himself, can 
in no respect secure the approbation of God. 

2. The second kind of love, is the love of benevolence, which cor- 
responds to the idea of God's goodness towards His creatures. 

This is the product of His wishes for their happiness. It is not 
dependent on their character, as is the love of complaeency, but 
is exercised towards both innocent, and guilty. 

It is general in its nature, not special, and exists towards all, 
even towards devils, and wicked men, because God's nature is bene- 
volent, and, therefore, He must wish for the happiness of His crea- 
tures. 

That that happiness is not attained, nor attainable, is due, not to 
Him, but to their own sin. 

When the benevolence of God is exercised actively in the be- 
stowment of good things upon His creatures it is called His benefi- 
cence. By the former, He wishes them happiness, by the latter, 
He confers blessings to make them so. 

This is done also to the wicked, as well as to the righteous. It 
is to this, that Christ refers, Matt. 5:45, "He maketh the sun to 
rise on the evil, and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and 
on the unjust." 



105 Abstract of Theology. 

3. A third form of love is the love of compassion. 

This corresponds to our idea of pity. It is benevolent disposi- 
tion to those who are suffering, or in distress. 

This also may be exercised towards the guilty, or the innocent; 
if it be possible to suppose that guilt, and suffering are separable. 

It has been very commonly held, that they are inseparable. Pain, 
suffering, and distress, have been believed to be the result of sin, and 
consequently inseparable from guilt. 

I do not believe them so, Man in a state of innocence was made 
capable of physical suffering. That capacity was necessary to the 
protection of his physical organism. 

The lower animals also suffer. 

Whatever addition to the capacity of suffering, has therefore been 
made by the fall, and is the consequence of sin, we are not, on 
that account, forced to the conclusion, that there can be no suffering, 
where there has been no sin. 

The capacity to suffer, may so belong to a higher organism, 
that we would naturally choose that organism, with that capacity, 
rather than a lower without it. If so, God can justly so create us. 

If misery, then, may be the lot of the innocent, God's love of com- 
passion can be exercised towards such. 

It can, and is also exercised towards the guilty. We see this 
in the forbearance with which He delays their punishment, in His 
constant offers of mercy, in His yearnings after their salvation, and, 
most signally, in the gift of His only begotten son, that whosoever 
believeth on him might not perish, but have everlasting life. 

4. A fourth form of the love of God, corresponds to what we 
call mercy. 

This can be exercised only towards sinners. 

Its very nature contemplates guilt in its objects. 

In consists, not only, in the desire not to inflict the punishment 
due to sin, and the neglect, and refusal to do so, but in the actual par- 
don of the offender. 

It cannot be exercised towards a righteous being, because in him 
is no sin or guilt to be pardoned. 

It is, however, no new attribute in God, which has arisen because 
of the existence of sin, and which is, therefore, an addition to His 
attributes. 



Abstract of Theology. 106 

It is a virtue inherent in His nature, and is especially only one 
form in which His love exhibits itself, the same love, as that benev- 
olence, which innocent creatures calls forth, and the same love 
which in another form of complacency, has been eternally exercised 
in the Godhead. 

When we say, that this mercy must be exercised in accordance 
with the truth, and justice of God, we say no more than is true of 
every attribute of God. No one can be exercised in such a way 
as to destroy another. Every one must be in harmony with the 
others. Or, remembering what we have before stated, that these 
attributes are not separate faculties, all that is meant in this case, 
as in all others, is that God must act in harmony with His 
nature. 

The objects of the exercise of this attribute, are all to whom God 
pardons offences of any kind. 

They are not to be confined to redeemed sinners, although this 
is the most signal exhibition. 

Under the ancient economy, God ruled as theocratic ruler over 
Israel. Sins of the nation, and sins of individuals in their capacity 
of citizens of the nation, were pardoned. 

Under that dispensation, God occupied to that people the posi- 
tion of an earthly ruler, and consequently might have pardoned sins 
against His government, at will, upon repentance, and upon merely 
governmental principles, that is, such as would secure obedience to 
the law, and peace, and order, and the welfare of the nation. 
These were offences against the mere person of the King or the laws 
of His state, and not against the fundamental principles of holiness 
and righteousness, hence sovereignty and expediency, could decide, in 
each case 'what might be done, and mercy was exercised, and justice 
dispensed accordingly. 

But this is very different from, the case of God the righteous judge, 
the dispenser, not of arbitrary law but of a law based upon His own 
nature, and that of man, essential obedience to which is necessary, not 
for maintaining government, bat for preserving and maintaining the 
right, and preventing the violation with impunity of eternal law. 

In both cases, God must act' in harmony with His whole nature. 

But in that of Israel, no obstacle was presented, by that nature 
to the pardon of individual, and national sins against the theocratic 
King. 

Hence mercy was extended, apparently at least, without compensa- 
tion to justice. 



107 Abstract of Theology. 

Yet, amid it all, there was a typical relation to the atonement 
made by Christ, through which God pardons sinners, in the sacrificial 
offerings, through which the people were required, to approach God 
seeking pardon for both individual, and national political «ns, which 
shows that, in some way in that atonement, is, after all, found the 
reason, why God even in those cases could be just, and yet justify the 
offenders. 

5. The fifth form of love is that of affection. 

This differs from that of complacency in as much, as it does not al- 
ways demand a worthy object. This is exhibited in the parable of 
the '-Prodigal Son". 

It differs from that of benevolence, in as much as its object is not 
viewed in general with all others, but is one of special interest. 

It differs from that of compassion, and that of mercy, because the 
object may neither be in distress, nor sinful. 

It arises from, 

1. Mutual relationship; of the Father to the Son, and other per- 
sons in the Trinity ; of God to Israel ; of Christ to his apostles, dis- 
ciples, church; of the adopted sons to God the Father. 

2. From dependence; as of creatures on the Creator; of the re- 
deemed upon the Redeemer. 

3. From ownership; as of God over man; of God over Israel; of 
Christ over the redeemed. Illustrated in the coin in Luke 15:8,9. 

This kind of love arises in each of these ways in man, and, as the 
Scriptures show, is also found in God. 

It is from this aspect of God's love, that proceeds grace, which is 
to be distinguished from love, and pity, and mercy. 

Love, as we have seen, is the general characteristic, exhibiting itself 
in these five different forms. 

Mercy is one of these, but is given to the guilty only. 

Fity is given to guilty or innocent, who may be in distress, pain, 
or suffering. 

Grace is also given to guilty, or innocent, and does not necessarily 
suppose distress in the object, but involves an affectionate interest in 
it, arising either from peculiar relation to it, or ownership of it, or 
compassion for its dependence. 

Grace, is underserved favour, (to innocent or guilty) arising from 
affection. 

Mercy, is underserved compassion, (to the guilty only.) 



Abstract of Theology. 108 

The Truth of God. 

The expression, truth of God, is ambiguous, and must be considered 
under the specific terms which set forth its various meanings. 

I. His Verity. He is True God. 

By this is meant, the exact correspondence of the nature of God, with 
the ideal of absolute perfection, The foundation of that ideal may be 
indeterminable. But, whether it is in the nature of God Himself, or 
in His will proceeding from His nature, or in eternal principles of the 
fit, and the necessary, and the right, which exactly coincide with that 
nature, God and that ideal must be perfect counterparts. That ideal 
can only be partially comprehended by any of His creatures, because 
of their imperfections, But it is known by God in all its supreme 
excellence, and His nature must fully correspond to the ideal thus 
known. Otherwise He would not be God. 

It is in this aspect of God's truth, that the Scriptures call Him the 
true God. See 2. Chron. 15:3, Jer. 10:10, John 17:3, 1. Thep. 1:9, 
1. John' 5:28, Rev. 3:7. 

II. His Veracity. 

By this is meant, God's truthfulness or incapacity to deceive. It 
is an attribute of His nature, which, like His power, exists, and makes 
Him what He is, even though there be no outward relation to it. By 
virtue of it, He is the source of all truth, not moral only, but even 
mathematical. s 

In its relation to God's creatures, it is the foundation of their confi- 
dence in the knowledge, obtained through the use of their own facul- 
ties, whether by intuition, observation or reason. Whatever imper- 
fection there is in such knowledge, is perceived to be due to the crea- 
ture, and not to God the creator. Upon it is also based belief in the 
revelations, God makes to man, of facts beyond the attainment of 
merely human power. 

The Scriptures affirm the veracity of God in the strongest terms. 
In addition to its assertion in numerous passages, we are told, Ps. 
108:4, that His ''truth reacheth unto the clouds". Tit. 1=2, calls Him 
"God that cannot lie." 

III. His Faithfulness. 

This consists in the truth of God viewed in its relation to His pur- 
poses whether secret, or revealed. When revealed, these become either 



109 Abstract of Theology. 

promises, or threats. But as promises, the ground upon which these 
purposes must be fulfilled, is, not any obligation to the creature, for 
God can come under none, but simply because, of His own faithful- 
ness to His purposes. Henne His faithfulness, demands equally the 
performance of His threatenings, as His promises. 

This faithfulness is based upon the veracity of His nature consi- 
dered above. It is by virtue of that veracity, that God must be faith- 
ful; yet the faithfulness is a new aspect, in which God's truthfulness 
appears. 

This faithfulness is the ground both of hope, and fear. In the 
Scriptures it is more frequently presented as a reason for hope, and 
trust. Bat, it is also the foundation of judgment and punishment. 
The faithful God has been true to His threatenings, as well as His 
promises. His faithfulness assures us, that He will so continue. 



Abstract of Theology. 110 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE XI 



Justice of God. 



By justice is meant that rectitude of character which leads to the 
treatment of others in strict accordance with their deserts. 

The justice of God, differs in no respect from this attribute, as seen 
among His rational creatures, except that His justice must be perfect 
while theirs is imperfect, and His must be impartial, while theirs is par- 
tial. These differences, however, exist in the exercise of justice, and 
not in the thing itself. They arise from the limited knowledge, reason, 
perception of right, and wrong, among men, and from the extent to 
which they naturally yield to their prejudices and passions. In the all 
perfect Being, however, justice has none of these deficiencies, and must 
be exercised according to its strictest nature, and in every conceivable 
form of perfection. To all, therefore, He must deal out the most ab- 
solute justice, whatever they deserve, only what they deserve, and the 
full measure of their deserts. 

Inasmuch as the justice of God may be considered as it exists in 
Himself, or as it is manifested towards His creatures, a distinction 
has been made in it as viewed in these aspects, into the absolute, and 
relative justice of God. 

By absolute justice is meant that rectitude of the divine nature, in 
consequence of which God is infinitely righteous in Himself. This rec- 
titude is essential to Him, and existed before there was a creation in 
which to exhibit it. 

By the relative justice of God is meant that justice, as exhibited 
towards, and exercised upon, His creatures in the dispensation of the 
universe. It is seen in the nature of the laws He gives, in His im- 



Ill Abstract of Theology. 

partiality in dealing with those subjected to them, in His maintenance 
of right, and virtue, by the threats and promises Tie attaches to them, 
and His punishment of those who violate them. To this form of jus- 
tice is often applied the name of rectoral justice, inasmuch as it is 
justice exercised by a ruler, in the form of government, and by 
means of laws. 

There is a form of justice, known among men *as commutative jus- 
tice, which consists in giving to each one his due in the barter and ex- 
change of commerce, or in any other of the mutual relations of life. As 
it is based upon the ground of mutual obligation, and therefore, is not 
suited to a being entirely independent of others, it cannot properly 
be ascribed to God. The blessings, given in consequence of His pro- 
mises to man, are not matters of obligation, but of grace. The only 
aspect, in which this could be connected with God, would be as be- 
tween the Father and the Son, in conferring upon His people those 
blessings which the Son had purchased through His sufferings. It is 
in this sense that the Scripture says, that God is "faithful and just to 
forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 

In the administration of the affairs of His creatures, God exer- 
cises distributive justice. By this is meant, the rewarding, and 
punishing His subjects, according to the sanctions of His law. His 
justice is here evinced in the maintenance of punishment, if the law 
be broken, but not in the bestowment of rewards, since these are given 
graciously as further inducements to duty. While, therefore, God 
gives all the rewards promised, they are given because promised, and 
not because due. These punishments further show forth the justice 
of God, as they are impartially inflicted. 

The grounds, upon which the offenders against God's law are 
punished, is not simply the fact, that a law of God has been broken, 
but, that in the breaking of that law, essential right has been violated 
and wrong committed. It would be sufficient to authorize punish- 
ment, that the law of the ruler is broken. Still it might appear that 
the will of the ruler might remit a punishment due to a mere violation 
of His will. But the law of God is based upon the immutable dis- 
tinctions between right, and wrong, and sin, and holiness, as they exist 
in the nature of God. Its violation, therefore is sin. It is a destruc- 
tion of the right. Hence, that which impels God to punish, is not 
His rectoral character, but His holy nature. It is when justice is 
regarded in this respect, that it is called punitive, or vindicatory. 



Abstract of Theology. 112 

But punitive justice is not admitted by all, nor that God punishes 
sin in any other respect, than as a violation of His will; nay it is even 
disputed, whether He even punishes the violations of His will. 

Three questions therefore, arises here. 

1. Does God punish the violations of His law ? 

2. Does He punish them, because they are merely violations, or 
because they are sin ? 

3. Is this done because of anything essential in His nature, or be- 
cause it is expedient for governmental, or other purposes? 

Upon these questions, there have been several opinions expressed. 

1. The Universalists, and some of the Socinians deny that God 
punishes even the violations of His law. They regard the precepts 
of morality, and duty, set forth in His word, as merely intended to 
guide us in this life. When this life is ended, there may be no deal- 
ing with man for such violation. They are only for a temporary pur- 
pose, and having accomplished that purpose, will have no further 
effect. God looks now only to the good of His creatures, and if the 
same method of dealing be extended beyond this life, it will be only 
for a time, and only for the good of those who suffer. According to 
this, these are not punishments, but chastisements, and God is moved 
by goodness and not by justice. 

2. A second theory is, that the laws given by God are merely ex- 
ponents of His will; that the ground upon which He commands is 
simply His sovereignty; that, looking at the universe as a world to be 
created, and to be occupied by His moral creatures, He selected 
such a system of laws as seemed to Him best to secure the welfare of 
those creatures, and that these laws while seeking the happiness, not 
of the individuals, but of the mass, are such as are really best fit- 
ted to that end; and that the justice of God is seen in so administering 
these laws, by rewarding those who obey, and punishing those who 
disobey, as to maintain His government, and thus secure the welfare 
of the whole. God, punishes sin, therefore, under this system, 
but He punishes it, not because of its heinous nature, but because it is 
best that men should not sin, and thus the best interest of all is se- 
cured by preventing the commission of it. The end He has in view, 
therefore, is rather to furnish a spectacle which shall restrain sin, 
than to perform an act demanded by the inherent nature of sin. It is 
His rectoral justice, therefore, rather than His vindicatory justice, that 
is thus shown. 



113 Abstract of Theology. 

This theory therefore, embraces four points. 

(1.) God punishes offences or sins. 

(2.) The object is, thus the better, to secure the welfare of His 
moral creatures. 

(3.) The laws of His government are based entirely upon His 
mere will. 

(4.) Consequently He punishes sin, not because of its inherent de- 
sert, but because the general happiness of His creatures, and not His 
own holiness demands it. 

3. The third theory is different in all respects, except the first 
of these points. 

(1.) It agrees, that God punishes sin. 

(2.) But it makes His object, the maintenance of the right. 

(3.) His laws and action are based upon the immutable principles 
of right. 

(4.) He punishes sin, because, from its nature, it demands punish- 
ment from Him. 

The great difficulty, in attaining a right conclusion in this matter, is 
that whatever might have been the origin of these laws, they would 
have been the same. Hence, no conclusion can be drawn from the 
nature of the laws themselves. It is manifest, that God in the establish- 
ment of the government of the world for any purpose, will not give to 
it laws, contrary to His nature. 

It does not follow, however, that because the same effect may be pro- 
duced by either of these causes, it is, therefore, unimportant to 
which of them it is assigned. There may be, and in the present 
case it is believed that there are, important reasons, why only one 
cause should be assigned, and that it should be ascertained to 
exist in the nature of God. Matters of great moment, in connection 
with the atonement especially, but also with other parts of the plan 
of salvation, demand the true answer. 

But this fact is not to be allowed, to warp our judgment or lead us 
away from the truth. It is only mentioned to show the importance 
of the subject now under consideration. 

As to the first of these theories, it need only be said, that the 
objections to it are involved in those to the second, in part, and that 
those peculiar to it, are too plain to need presentation. 

As to the 2nd, it may be objected, 

1. "That it makes happiness, and not holiness, and virtue, the great 
end of God. The dictates of nature teach us all plainly, that hap- 
piness does not occupy this place." Hodge : Manuscript lecture. 



Abstract of Theology. 114 

2. "It destroys the essential difference, between right and wrong, 
which conscience teaches us." Hodge : manuscript lecture. 

3. It supposes, that God might have made a world, in which pre- 
cisely opposite laws might have prevailed by His command, and that 
thus it would be His duty, in this world to reward, in that world to 
punish, His creatures for the same action. 

4. It is opposed to the relation of the true will of God to His 
nature. It ascribes the laws of God to that will. It recognizes 
those law r s as flowing from it alone. They are as God pleased. Now, 
it is not denied, that they come from the free will of God, and are 
such as please Him. But they have a higher basis even than His 
will. That will is influenced by His nature, and is its exponent. 
Now, whether, that nature is itself the basis of good and right, or 
whether good and right considered as distinct from it, in the na- 
ture of things, simply accord perfectly with that nature, the result 
is the same; the will is influenced, by the nature, to establish the 
laws of creation according to the immutable principles of right and 
wrong. 

5. This theory is also opposed to the independence of God, who 
is thus forced to punish sin; not by any law of His own nature, 
which would still maintain that independence, but from a regard 
to the government of His creatures, which could not be otherwise 
maintained. (Altered from Hodge's Outlines.) 

6. The instinctive sense of justice in man testifies to the ill 
desert of sin. This is the universal testimony of conscience. But 
conscience speaks for God, and therefore, testifies to the fact that, 
independent of the evil to society, the wrong doer deserves punish- 
ment proportioned to his offence. 

7. Hodge in his Outlines, thus argues this from the love of holiness 
and hatred of sin in God. "If the reason for God's punishing, was 
founded only in God's arbitrary will, then He could not be said 
to hate sin, but only to love His own will, or, if His reason for 
punishing sin rested upon governmental considerations, then He 
could not be strictly said to hate sin, but only its consequences." 
But both, conscience and Scripture teach, that God does hate sin, 
and love holiness. 

Leaving these considerations, as to the second theory with the 
statement of these objections, I proceed to establish the third theory 



115 Abstract of Theology. 

by the teachings of Scripture. It will be seen, that the Scriptures 
represent God as a just God, thus ascribing that character to Him; 
that they do it in such a way, as shows that His justice is not simply 
in His will, but is a part of His nature ; that they challenge denial of 
the position, that the acts of God are in accordance with right, and jus- 
tice, and that not of His sovereignty, but because of His absolute jus- 
tice; that they present Him as actually claiming vindicatory or aveng- 
ing justice, speaking of His justice as hatred of sin, and not desire to 
maintain government; nay that they are constantly showing us instance 
after instance, in which God has exercised that avenging justice, com- 
mencing with the ejection of Adam from Paradise, and culminating 
in its highest and most signal example in the sacrificial work of Christ. 
It is remarkable, that all of this, can be established from the Scrip- 
tures in favour of vindicatory justice, and not a passage can be given, 
in proof that He is only active for the maintainance of His govern- 
ment, or the mere happiness of His creatures. Indeed, in the Scrip- 
tures everywhere, it is God's glory, and dishonour, His holiness, and 
sin, His love, and His justice, that are placed in fearful contrast. 

1. Passages in which God is spoken of, as having a just character, 
and in which this is held forth as an excellence in Him. How can 
these be accounted for, if justice and will are the same or even 
if justice is no more than the administration of human affairs accord- 
ing to His plan ? While this is done, there are no passages in which 
He asserts His power, or choice, or justice in changing the essential 
laws laid down for our rule. Deut. 32:4. Job 8:3; 34:10,12,21; 36:3. 
Ps. 9:4; 11:7; 33:4 5; 71:19; 89:14; 92:15; 97:2; 99:4; 119:137,138. 
Zeph. 3:5. Rom. 2:2. 

2. Passages in which God vindicates His claim to this character, 
by asserting His justice and His impartiality to all men. Gen. 18:16.33, 
Deut. 10=17. Job 37.24. Eccl. 3:17; 12:14. Ezek. 18:29. Acts 
10:34,35; 17:31. Rom. 2:3—6, 11; 14:12; Gal. 2:6. Eph. 6:8. Col. 
3:25. 1. Pet. 1:17. Jude. 15. 

3. In those passages, in which God's justice is spoken of, it is never 
based upon His will, nor His economy, but, 

(a.) Judgment is always based upon His righteousness. Ps. 9:8; 
50:4,6; 96:10,13; 98:9. 

(b ) His economy among the Jews is commended, not because of 
its setting forth His will, but because of its justice or righteousness. 
Deut, 4:8. Ps. 19:7—9. Ps. 119=138. 

4. Passages in which God speaks of His justice, as being a hatred 
of sin. Ps. 5:4,5. Hab. 1:13. 



Abstract of Theology. 116 

5. Passages in which God is spoken of as a jealous God, exercising 
avenging justice. Ex. 20:5. Deut. 32:34,35,39,41,42,43. Ps. 94:1,2. 
Is. 34=8, 66=6. Heb. 10:26—31' 

6. Passages in which the dealings of God with His enemies are 
spoken of, in connection with such words as anger, wrath, fury, &c 
Num. 12=9. Deur, 32:22. Judges 10:7. 2. Sam. 22:8. Job 19:11. 
Ps. 2=5; 7:11; 2P9; 90:11. Is. 28=21. Is. 30:30; 65=15- Jer. 30:24. 
Lam. 2:3; 3=43. Ezek. 5:13; 38:18. Hos. 12:14. Nahum 1:6. 

7. Passages in which angels are spoken of as ministers of such 
vengeance. These are not introduced as proof of the justice of God, 
but simply as parts of transactions, by which that justice is manifested. 
Num. 22=22,31. 2. Sam. 24:16- 1. Chron. 21:14,15,16,27. Ps. 35:5,6. 
Rev. 7=1,2 3; 9=15; 15:1; 16:17. 

8. The instances given of the actual exercise of God's wrath are asso- 
ciated, not with the idea of producing effect in His moral government, 
nor with the exercise of His mere will, -but as results produced by His 
emotions against sin, or in other words his avenging justice. . 

Some of these are, (1.) The fallen angels, (2.) our first parents, (3.) 
Sodom and Gomorrah, (4.) the flood, (5.) the plagues of Egypt, (6.) the 
punishments of the children of Israel in the wilderness, (7.) the cap- 
tivity of the Jews, (8 ) God's punishment of heathen nations, because 
of their wicked instrumentality in the exercise of His wrath, against 
the delinquent Israelites and (9.) The threatened eternal punishment 
of the w T icked. 

9. Passages, which point out something in the work of Christ, as 
being essential before God could pardon sin. Matt. 26=39. Rom. 3=26. 
2. Cor. 5=21. 



Abstract of Theology. 118 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY 



LECTURE XII. 



The Will of God. 

By the will of God is meant that power, inherent in His nature, by 
which He purposes, and choose*s any end, or object, or determines its 
existence. 

I. That God mast have this power is evident. 

1. Because it is an attribute of personality. A conscious personal 
being cannot be without will. Every proof that we have, therefore, 
that God has personal existence, is evidence that He must have will. 

2. Will is also a perfection, and must be found in the Being of all 
perfection. 

3. The absolutely independent God, who is controlled by, and de- 
pendent upon, no person, nor thing, must have will, by which to guide 
His own acts. 

4. It cannot be separated from the possession of the power, and 
wisdom, seen in the creation of the universe, and in all God's out- 
ward acts, for, without it, the things which wisdom devises, and power 
executes, could neither be devised, nor executed. 

5. It is essential to the sovereignty, by which He rules the uni- 
verse, for will is the element in which sovereignty consists. 

6. Without it there could be no existence whatever, not even of 
God Himself. 

II. The objects of that will are all beings that exist, and all events 
that take place. 



119 Abstract of Theology. 

1. God must will His own existence, and nature. These are ob- 
jects of supreme desire. The infinite excellence of that nature, which 
furnishes a completely worthy object of His complacent love, cannot 
be contemplated without a correspondingly infinite desire that it should 
exist, and should be what it is. The will, thus exercised, however, is 
not causal, as it is towards all other objects. It does not give exist- 
ence to God, nor make His nature what it is, but on the contrary, it 
is because God is, and has such a nature, that He must so will. 

2. The will of God is also exercised in establishing, and maintain- 
ing, the personal relations revealed to us as existing in the Godhead. 
It is by the will of the Father, that He begets the Son, and by the 
will of the Father aud the Son, that the Spirit proceeds. The action 
of the will here is causal, although these relations are eternal, and 
are characteristic of the Godhead. They are the results of the divine 
activity, and, as effects, must find their final cause in the will which 
moves to action. The fact, that, because this is divine will, and action, 
there can be no priority of time in the will to the act, does not forbid 
the causal relation which, because of the eternity of God, must make 
cause, and effect in Him coeternal. 

3. Another exhibition of will in the Divine Being, is connected 
with the mutual love of the divine persons towards each other. This 
love proceeds, from these persons, as one form of eternal activity, and 
is willed by each to the full extent of its infinite exercise. 

4. The will of God is more plainly made known, however, to His 
creatures, in His outward activity in creation. This was called into 
existence by the word of His power. He willed, and it was. But 
for that will, it had not been. Viewed, as a whole, or in its minutest 
part, the universe presents everywhere the impress of its Maker's will. 
To that will is due not only all material, but also all spiritual exis- 
tence. 

5. The will of God is also manifested in His providential care, and 
government of the universe. In creating it, He has established laws, 
both mechanical, and spiritual, by which it is regulated. But He has, 
also, not withdrawn His own presence, and power, in its continued 
guidance, and preservation; but is constantly developing, through it, 
and in it, His eternal purpose. 

6. In human affairs, however, the will of God is most distinctively 
exhibited in the work of redemption. Let this be admitted as a true 
work of God, and, at once, appear the proofs of a far reaching end, 
accomplished by frequent acts of interposition, and guidance, in which 



Abstract of Theology. 120 

concentres and culminates the entire scope of God's outward activity. 
The will of God is seen to be the propelling force of His devising wis- 
dom, and executing power; in the accomplishment of one great pur- 
pose, to which is indissolubly linked all His other acts and volitions. 

III. A question arises as to this will of God, whether, in its exer- 
cise, He acts necessarily or freely. 

It has been answered, that His will is exercised both necessarily, and 
freely, according to the object of that will. 

1. He is said to will necessarily Himself, His holy nature, and 
character, and the personal relations in the Godhead. This language 
may be admitted, if it be borne in mind, that the necessity here de- 
clared, is not one of fate, nor of outward compulsion. Whatever, is 
meant by it, must be fully consistent w r ith God's free agency. It is 
a necessity, that arises from His nature, because of which, such 
must be the will of God, that He wills Himself, His existence, and 
the relations of the persons of the Godhead. Such being the nature of 
the necessity, it would be better to express it in some way, which 
would indicate its source and prevent misapprehension. The word 
"naturally" would suffice, were it not for its ambiguity in common 
use; consequently "essentially" is suggested, as expressive of all the 
necessity, and at the same time of all the freedom, which must ac- 
company an act of the will proceeding from the very essence, or nature 
of God. 

2. As to all else than Himself, God wills freely, whether His will 
has regard to their existence, or mode of existence, or their actions, or 
the events which influence or control them. He does His own will, 
not that of another. He chooses what, and whom, He will create, and 
the times, places, and circumstances, in which He will place those He 
creates. He marks out to all His intelligent creatures the path of life. 
He uses them for His purposes. Though He gives to them, also, like 
freedom of the will, yet is their will subordinate to His, and controlled 
by it, and their actions by His. Yet is this so wisely done, and so 
truly in accordance with their own natures, as fully to preserve in 
them consciousness, and conviction, of the power of contrary choice, 
and of full responsibility for what they choose, and do. 

When it is said, however, that God w T ills freely, it is not. meant, that 
no influence is exerted upon His will. It is only intended to deny 
that His will is influenced from without. In all His outward acts, as 
well as in those within, He is governed by His own nature. That 
nature, and that will, must always be in unison. As He is infinitely 



121 Abstract of Theology. 

wise, so mast His will, and action, be directed towards wise ends, in 
the use of wise means. His infinite justice forbids that He should 
will, or do anything contrary to the strictest justice. The God of 
truth mast also purpose in accordance with truth, and faithfulness. 
His love too, which is so gracious a characteristic of God, forbids that 
He shall will, otherwise that benevolently towards all. securing the 
happiness of the innocent, and desiring that even of the guilty, when 
it can be made consistent with His jastice. The holiness of His na- 
ture makes it essential that, as all perfection, in perfect harmony, is 
involved in that holiness, so also must it be found in every purpose 
which He forms, as well as in every action, by which His purposes are 
accomplished. When, therefore, God is said to will freely in all 
matters which are without, it is not meant to deny, that He is gov- 
erned by His nature in all the respects, in which that nature ought 
to affect His will. 

But, even in the volition thus formed, God does not will freely, in 
the sense of willing arbitrarily. He is not indifferent as to what He 
will do. There is choice, and not arbitrary choice. There are rea- 
sons perceived by Him, which induce Him to choose one end, rather 
than another, and one set of means to that end, in preference to 
others. There is in each case a prevailing motive, not necessarily 
dependent upon its own force, or power, but upon the simple fact, 
that, in the midst of the numerous ends, and means known to Him 
through His infinite knowledge, this motive makes this end, and these 
means best pleasing to Him. The very nature of choice in any being 
of intelligence, and free agency, makes this the method by which the 
will forms its decision. There is nothing, in the nature of the omnis- 
cient, and all-purposing God, which forbids that this also should be 
the method of His volitions. Our conception of God in this respect 
cannot be incorrect, although, as in all instances in which we attempt 
to arrive at the perfections of God, through those recognized as such 
in man, this conception may be very inadequate. 

IV. The discussion of the preceding question, shows how truly so 
far as the will of man is concerned he has been made in the image of 
God. It suggests the propriety therefore, of setting forth more par- 
ticularly the points of similarity, and dissimilarity, between the will of 
man, and that of God. 

1. Some points of similarity may be mentioned. 

(1.) In man, will is the element in which sovereignty exists; so also 
in God. 



Abstract of Theology. 122 

(2.) In man, will depends upon the understanding, that is, it is 
exercised, all other things being equal, in accordance with its dictates; 
so also in God. 

(3.) In man, the will is essentially influenced by His nature ; so 
also in God. 

(4.) In man, the will is* controlled by the prevailing motive, which 
is made the strongest, because it is that most pleasing to Him; so also 
in God. 

2. But there also points of dissimilarity between these wills. 

(1.) God never wills what He cannot do ; man often does. 

(2.) In God, the will is never controlled from without; in man this 
is frequently done. 

[By the outward control in man is not here meant, that physical 
compulsion by which a man is sometimes said to act against His will ; 
but those legitimate outward influences from persons, circumstances, 
and events which lead men freely to choose, in accordance with the 
laws of the mind.] " 

(3.) In God the prevailing motive is not only the most pleasing ; 
but, presumably, the best; in man it is only the most pleasing, not 
the most reasonable, and right, and most conducive to happiness ; but 
often the very contrary of these. 

(4.) In God there is but one will, or purpose, which comprehends 
all His ends and means ; He does not will, by successive acts, nor in 
successive moments, but simultaneously, and eternally ; man w T ills 
successively, one will follows another, and the volition of one man of- 
ten succeeds the acts, as well as the volitions, of others. 

(5.) The will of God is always accomplished; that of man is often 
defeated. 

(6.) God never -changes His will, nor perceives any reason for such 
change ; man changes his frequently, from caprice, or because of new 
information, or because He sees the importance of a better life, or is 
carried off by passion to one that is worse. 

V. Various distinctions as to the will of God have been pointed 
out, some of which are correct, or at least admissible, and others in- 
correct, and objectionable. 

The following list is given by Turretine in the fifteenth and sixteenth 
questions of his third book. The statements made are in the main 
taken from his discussion. 



123 Abstract of Theology. 

1. The correct distinctions. 

(1.) The first distinction is between the decretive and preceptive 
will of God. t 

By the decretive will is meant that will of God by which He pur- 
poses, or decrees, whatever shall come to pass, whether He wills, 
Himself to accomplish it effectively, or cau^atively, or to permit it to 
occur through the unrestrained agency, or will of His creatures. In 
either case however, He has determined, purposed, or decreed, either 
to bring it to pass, or to cause it to be brought to pass. 

By the preceptive will is meant, that which He has prescribed to be 
done by others. Such are the laws under which He places His crea- 
tures, or the duties which He enjoins upon them. It is the rule of 
duty. 

The decretive will must always be fulfilled ; the preceptive may be 
disobeyed, and therefore remain unfulfilled. 

(2.) Nearly corresponding to this first distinction is another into 
the will of eudokia, and that of euarestia*. As the former was taken 
from two Latin, so this is from two Greek words; and these Greek 
words are scriptural. The former division was made in connection 
with purpose to do, this, with pleasure, or desire to do, or to see done. 
But the two correspond in the fact that the will of eudokia, like that 
of decree, comprises what shall certainly be accomplished, and that of 
euarestia like that of precept embraces simply what it pleases God 
that His creatures shall do. 

It must not be supposed, however, that, because of the meaning 
eudokia, (well pleasing,) the decretive will, expressed by this word, 
is confined to those volitions of God, in which the happiness and 
blessing of man are involved. It was with reference both to evil to 
some, and blessing to others, that Christ used it when He said, "Yea 
Father for so it was well pleasing in thy sight." Matt. 11:26. [Can- 
terbury Revision.] The decretive will of God, ^whatever its effect 
upon His creatures, is "well pleasing" to God. 

(3.) A third distinction is between the will of the signum and that 
of the beneplacitum. 

By the beneplacitum is intended, a will of God which is only in 
Himself and is subject to His power, until He makes it known by some 
revelation, or by the event itself. Any will thus made known becomes 
the signum. Manifestly these may differ in several respects. 

If the will of the beneplacitum be confined, as it should be, to the 
decretive will of God, it will be broader, and narrower, than that of 
the signum; broader, because at no time has the whole decretive will 



Abstract of Theology. 124 

of God been revealed; and narrower, because the will' of the sigrmm 
must extend, also, to the preceptive will of God, which God prescribes 
as duty, and yet does not determine shall be performed. In some 
cases, God even gives commands, which are, for the time, a rule of duty 
and, therefore, a part, of His preceptive will, and thus also of this will 
of signum, obedience to which He actually intends to prevent. Thus 
He ordered Abraham by the will of signum to sacrifice Isaac, which 
was thus made to His servant, a rule of duty, yet, by the will of bene- 
placitum, He not only did not purpose the sacrifice, but intended to 
interpose to prevent it. 

(4.) A fourth distinction is between the secret, and the revealed 
will of God. Turretine says, "The former of these is commonly re- 
ferred to the will of decree, which for the most part is hidden in God; 
the latter to the will of the precept, which is revealed, and disclosed 
in the Law and the Gospel. Its basis is sought in Deut. 29.29. "The 
secret things belong unto the Lord, our God; but those things which 
are revealed belong unto us, and to our children, forever, that we may 
do all the words of this law." The former is called a profound and 
unsearchable abyss. Ps. 36=6. Eom. 11:33,34. The latter is ac- 
cessible to all, nor is it far from us. Deut. 30:14. Rom. 10:8. That 
has for its object all those things, which God wills, either to effect, or 
permit, and which, especially, He wishes to do concerning each man, 
and which are, therefore, absolute, and fixed without exception. 
The latter refers to those things, which belong to our duty, and which 
are conditionally set forth. The former is always done, the latter is 
often violated." 

2. The incorrect distinctions; 

(1.) That of antecedent, and consequent volitions. 

By this is not meant one will, or decree, which precedes another in 
its logical order in the divine' mind, or in its execution by God, as 
that of the creation of man, before that of His redemption; nor one will 
of the precept, which consists in the prescribed duty, followed by an- 
other which sets forth the consequent rewards and punishments. 
Were this so, the distinction would be objectionable, only, because 
of its inaccuracy in transferring to God such methods of our action, 
or logical conception, as belong to that succession in our acts, and will 
which cannot exist in God. It would be only the same kind 
of misstatement, of which orthodox theologians are guilty, when un- 
der the form of sublapsarianism, or supralapsarianism, they attempt 



125 Abstract of Theology. 

to set forth the order of God's decrees. In one form, in which this 
distinction is incorrectly made, it is claimed, that a consequent will 
in God arises after He sees the results of one which is previous, or 
antecedent; another that He forms a particular volition, especially 
affecting an individual man, following upon a general volition, or 
disposition, to seek the happiness of His creatures, or to prescribe 
a course by which that happiness may be secured. 

To the distinction of antecedent, and consequent volitions, in 
these forms, there are many objections. 

(a.) It admits succession in the decrees of God. and makes them 
many, where they are bat one. 

(b.) It makes them temporal, when they are eternal. 

(c.) Turretine ably argues, that thus contrary wills would exist 
in God, who would thus be, at one, and the same time willing, and 
not willing, the same event. 

(d.) He also justly states, that the antecedent will, thus spoken 
of, could be only a mere wishing (velleitas,) and not a will (vol- 
untas.) 

(e.) He suggests, that, thus, the independence of God would be 
taken away, since He must wait upon man to will, and act, before 
He could will. 

(2.) A second incorrect distinction is between the efficacious and 
inefficacious will of God. 

This distinction would also be admissible, if by the efficacious will 
were meant that of the decree, and by the inefficacious, that of the 
precept. But, as introduced, both terms are applied to the will of 
the decree. Turretine objects to this application, in the first place, 
"because the scripture testifies, that the purpose of God is immutable, 
and His will cannot be resisted. Isa 46\10. Rom. 9:19; but if it 
cannot be resisted, He will surely perfect that which He intends; 
secondly, inefficacious will cannot be attributed to God, unless He 
be accused either of ignorance, because He knew not that the event 
would not occur, or of impotence, because He could not accomplish 
the result He purposed; finally, the same reasons which proves 
that antecedent, and consequent will are not allowable, are also 
proofs against efficacious, and inefficacious." 

(3.) The third of the incorrect distinctions is that of absolute and 
conditional. 

If, by the conditional will, were meant the conditions appended 
to the preceptive will of God, in the promises, and threats, given 
as inducements to duty, it would not be objected to. But the object, 



Abstract of Theology. 126 

of those, who present it, is to apply it to the decretive will, and to 
suppose that God, in His purposes, determines, on certain conditions, 
that He will do a certain act, which He will not do if those con- 
ditions fail. Whether these conditions shall fail, or not, is supposed 
to be unknown to God, or, if known, yet at least, so far undeter- 
mined, that He has formed no purpose whether, or not, to permit, 
or to accomplish them. The purposes of God, thus formed, are not, 
therefore, absolute decrees, as are all those concerning what shall 
actually, and absolutely take place, but are only conditional ones, 
based upon some antecedent condition, which must first occur. 
• This distinction is introduced, chiefly, to show how God can make 
an absolute decree about the salvation of mankind in general, and, 
yet, not about that of any one man in particular. Absolutely He 
decress the salvation in general of all who believe. But the sal- 
vation of each one is decreed, only upon the condition that He be- 
lieves. Whether that faith will be exercised by any one, is not 
determined by God. Nor so far as any purpose made by Him is 
it even known to God." 

Such is the theory and purpose of this distinction. The objec- 
tions presented against the other two of these incorrect distinctions 
are also justly made against it. 



Abstract of Theology. 128 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE XIII. 



The Decrees of God. 

The decrees of God may be defined, as that just, wise, and holy 
purpose, or plan, by which eternally and within Himself, He deter- 
mines all things whatsoever, that come to pass. 

I. This purpose, or plan, is just, wise, and holy. Since it is formed 
by God, it must have this character. His nature forbids that any- 
thing otherwise shall proceed from Him. Though that, which He 
permits, may be unrighteous, or foolish, or sinful, these characteristics 
belong to it because of others, while His will, purpose, or plan, con- 
tinues just, wise, and holy. 

It is needful, that this fact be always remembered. 

1. Because, on account of the ignorance of man, there must be 
much in connection with this matter, which cannot be comprehended; 
because, (1.) man's finite knowledge cannot compass the nature, and 
mode, and reasons of the will, and action, of the infinite God, (2.) be- 
cause of the difficulty of reconciling the free agency, and responsibil- 
ity of man, with the preexistent knowledge, and purpose of God, and 
(3.) because of the perplexities, which arise from the existence of sin, 
in a world planned, created, and governed by a holy, all wise, and al- 
mighty God. 

2. The same fact should- also not be forgotten, because of the na- 
tural corruption of the human heart, which makes it (1.) revolt against 
the sovereignty of God, (2.) seek refuge from the condemnation justly 
due to sin, and (3.) endeavour to find excuses for continuance therein. 

It is our duty, therefore, (1.) to seek to learn all the facts made 
known by reason, and revelation, (2.) to accept them, (3.) to recognize 
them as the testimony of God, (4.) to admit that our knowledge is 



129 Abstract of Theology. 

still imperfect, (5.) to believe that further imformation, will still fur- 
ther remove the difficulties, (6.) to refuse on their account to reject 
what God has actually taught, and (7.) amid all, to believe that, what- 
ever that teaching is, it must accord with justice, wisdom, and holy 
perfection, because it is God of whom these things are affirmed. 

II. These decrees are properly defined, to be God's purpose, or 
plan. 

The term "decree" is liable to some misapprehension, and objection, 
because it conveys the idea of an edict, or of some compulsory deter- 
mination. "Purpose" has been suggested, as a better word. "Plan" 
will sometimes be still more suitable. The mere use of these words will 
remove, from many, some difficulties, and prejudices, which make them 
unwilling to accept this doctrine. They perceive that, in the creation 
preservation, and government of the world, God must have had a plan, 
and, that that plan must have been just, wise, and holy, tending both 
to His own glory, and the happiness of His creatures. They recog- 
nize that a man, who has no purpose, nor aim, especially in important 
matters, and who cannot, or does not, devise the means by which to 
carry out his purpose, is without wisdom, and capacity, and. unworthy 
of his nature. Consequently, they readily believe, and admit, that 
the more comprehensive, and, at the same time, the more definite, is 
the plan of God, the more worthy is it of infinite wisdom. Indeed 
they are compelled to the conclusion, that God cannot be what He is, 
without forming such a purpose, or plan. 

III. Any such plan, or purpose of God, must have been formed 
eternally, and within Himself. 

1. It must have been eternally purposed, because God's only mode 
of existence, as has been heretofore proved, is eternal, and therefore 
His thoughts, and purpose, and plan, must be eternal. The fact also, 
that His knowledge is infinite, and cannot be increased, forbids the 
forming of plans in time, which, as they become known to Him, would 
add to that knowledge. It is also, to be remembered, that the plan 
must precede its execution, but, as time began with that execution, the 
plan could not have been formed in time, and must be eternal. 

2. In like manner also was it formed within Himself. He needed 
not to go without Himself, either for the impulse which led to it, or the 
knowledge in which it was conceived. He had all knowledge, both 
of the actual, and the possible, all wisdom as to the best end, and 
means, all power to execute what He devised, in the use, or without 



Abstract of Theology. 130 

the use of appropriate secondary means, and free will to select, of all 
possible plans, and means, whatever He Himself should please, and 
the impulse which moved Him, existed alone in that knowledge and 
will. 

IV. By this plan, or purpose, God determined all things, which it 
included. 

This is manifestly true, even if all things whatsover were not thus 
embraced. 

To say the least, all the parts of it, as well as the whole, were known 
to Him. But this knowledge, apart from any decree, determines, marks 
out, and fixes, the nature, limits, time, sequence, and relation to each 
other, of the whole, and of all the parts. Things which are known by 
God as future, must certainly be future. A determination, or decree 
to bring them to pass, and even their actual existence, does not make 
them more certain. 

But, whence is God's knowledge of the futurity of any events, ex- 
cept from the knowledge of His purpose, to cause, or permit them 
to come to pass ? The knowledge of the futurity of any event, over 
which any one has absolute control, is the result of his purpose, not 
its cause. And, as God has such absolute control over all things, 
His knowledge that they will be, must proceed from His purpose 
that they shall -be. It cannot be from mere perception of their 
nature, for He gives that nature, and in determining to give it, 
determines what it shall be, and thus determines the effects which 
that nature will cause. Nor is it from mere knowledge of the mutual 
relations which will be sustained by outward events, or beings, for, 
it is He, that establishes these relations for the accomplishment of 
His own purposes. To say that this nature, and these relations are 
from God, and are not from His purpose, is in the highest degree 
fatalistic, for it would involve that they originate in some necessity 
of the nature of God, because of which He must give them exist- 
ence without so willing, and even against His will. In this way 
alone could God be said to know, and yet not to purpose them. 
His knowledge would arise from knowledge of His nature, and of 
what that nature compels Him to do, and not from knowledge of 
His purpose, and of His will involved in that purpose. This, and 
this alone, would make equally certain, and known what will come 
to pass, without basing that knowledge upon His purpose ; but it 
would not only be destructive of His free agency, and will, but, 
from the nature of necessity, would make the outward events eter- 



131 Abstract of Theology. 

nal, and prevent the existence of time, and the relation to it of all 
things whatever. 

V. This plan, or purpose, includes all things whatsoever that 
come to pass; not some things, but all things; not all things in 
general, but each thing in particular. 

So interwoven are all these things, that the lack of purpose, as to 
any one, would involve the same lack as to multitudes of others, in- 
deed as to every other connected in the slightest degree with the one 
not purposed. 

This is evidently true as to all subsequent, events; but it is equally so 
as to those that are antecedent, for these, thus connected, antecedent 
events have been established with efficient causative power, to all 
their effects. God knows the existence of this power; He has in fact 
ordained and bestowed it. He knows also what will be its effects. 
With this. knowledge, God must, therefore, either allow them to act, 
because He purposes that the result shall follow, or He must hinder, 
or restrain, or accelerate, their action because He would change the 
effect. In each case He purposes, in the one to effect, in the other to 
permit, and His purpose thus extends to all things. Any limita- 
tion of His purpose involves limitation of His knowledge, and this 
cannot be true of the omniscient God. 

To such an extent is the force of this realized, that it is admitted 
by all, that, in the mechanical universe, and even in the control of 
the lower animals, this is true. But the free agency of man, and 
of other rational and moral agents, is supposed to prevent God's pur- 
posing, or willing, all things with reference to them. It is said to take 
away that free agency, and consequent responsibility. 

The Scriptures recognize both the sovereignty of God; and the free 
agency, and accountability of man. Consciousness assures us of the 
latter. The nature of God, as has just been shown, proves the former. 
The Bible makes no attempt to reconcile the two. Paul even declines 
to discuss the subject, saying, "Nay but oh man who are thou, that 
repliest against God." Rom. 9:20. The two facts are plainly revealed. 
They cannot be contradictory, they must be reconcilable. That we 
cannot point out the harmony between them is a proof, only of our 
ignorance, and limited capacity, and not that both are not true. It is 
certain, however, that, whatever influences God exercises, or permits, to 
secure the fulfilment of His purposes, He always acts in accordance 
with the nature, and especially with the laws of mind He has bestowed 



Abstract of Theology. 132 

upon man. It is equally true, that His action is in full accord with 
that justice, and benevolence, which are such essential attributes of 
God Himself. 

Acting, however, upon the belief that the purpose of God, accom- 
plishing His will in His rational creatures, is inconsistent with their 
free agency, several classes of theologians have presented theories in 
opposition to the scriptural doctrine of decrees above set forth. 

1. The most objectionable theory is that of the Socinians, who 
deny that God can know what a free agent will choose, or do, before 
He acts, or wills. They maintain that the will is, at the moment of its 
choice, in such perfect equilibrium, that there are no tendencies in any 
direction which prevent an absolute freedom of choice. No knowledge, 
therefore, of the will itself, nor of the circumstances which surround 
its action, will enable any one to say, before it is exercised, what will 
be its choice. Its act, therefore, is entirely undetermined and inde- 
terminable, until the free agent wills. It cannot even be known, be- 
forehand, by God Himself. 

The objections to this theory are obvious. 

(1.) It is based upon a wrong conception of the nature oi free 
agency; for it supposes each act of the will to be an arbitrary choice. 
But such arbitrary choice is not found even in God. As regards man, 
we know, from consciousness, and experience, that His will is in- 
fluenced by motives. Indeed, so truly is it governed by the nature 
of the man, and the attendant influences, that, even we can predict 
his will, and action in many cases, and only fail to do so perfectly 
in all because of our limited knowledge. The omniscient God can- 
not fail to know everything that affects the decision, and therefore, 
what the decision will be. 

(2.) This theory is also opposed to the independence of God. It 
supposes Him to have made beings of such a nature, that His own 
actions, and will, must depend upon theirs, and that He must await 
their decision, wherever it will have any influential bearing on any- 
thing future, before He can know, or purpose what He Himself will do. 

(3.) It is also manifest, from what has been said under the first ob- 
jection, that this theory is opposed to the omniscience of God. It ex- 
pressly puts a limitation, upon that omniscience, by declaring that 
He is limited in His knowledge, at least so far as not to know before- 
hand the decision of the will of His creatures. But ignorance of this 
would also involve ignorance of all things in the future, with which 
it may be connected. This would, in a world inhabited by free agents, 
constitute no small part of all that will Occur. 



133 Abstract of Theology. 

(4.) It is opposed to the instances, mentioned in Scripture, of the 
prediction beforehand by God, even of the bad actions of certain men. 
See as to Pharaoh, Ex. 7:3,4. Hazael, 2 Kings 8=13. Judas, Matt. 
26:21. Peter, Matt. 26:34. &c, &c. 

(5.) It is opposed to the power of forming habits, which is a mat- 
ter of universal experience. Such habits, when known, constitute a 
source of information, upon which, to some degree, reliance can be 
placed in foretelling what any man will do. A perfect knowledge of 
his habits, as well as of all else that influences, would secure infallible 
prediction of the choice. God has this perfect knowledge, and if He 
cannot foreknow the decision, it must be because it is not true that 
habits can be formed which according to the law of habit will influ- 
ence, and control. 

2. Another theory has been advanced by some Arminians, who 
maintain that God does not know the free actions of men, not because 
He cannot know them, but because He chooses not to do so. 

(1.) The first objection to this theory is, that, were it true, it would 
not give greater freedom to the will, than does the orthodox statement. 

Though this theory honours God more, it is inferior to the former, 
with respect to the object for which it is introduced. If it could be 
true, that so indeterminate is the future will of a free agent, that even 
God cannot know it, then that future will would certainly be entirely 
under the control of the free agent, and He would, to the utmost ex- 
treme, be free. His will would be in absolute equilibrium in the act of 
choosing. Neither would any motive exist to influence that choice. 
It would be thoroughly arbitrary. 

But the second theory has not this advantage, for it does not sup- 
pose this condition of equilibrium. In claiming, that God does not 
choose to know, what He might know if He should so choose, it ad- 
mits that there are the same surrounding circumstances, and condi- 
tions, and the same prevailing motive, through foresight of which God 
could know if He should so will. But, if this be true, there can 
be no state of equilibrium. The certainty of what will occur is as 
much fixed, as though known to God. It is not His knowledge of 
these things, and of their certain result in the act of the will, that 
makes it certain what it will be. It is the fact, that these things 
are such as they are, which makes it possible for Him to know 
them. If He barely determines to permit, what His knowledge 
perceives will surely take place, the event is not made any more 
certain by that knowledge, than it was before. Unquestionably, 



Abstract of Theology. 134 

therefore, so far as the permissive decrees of God are involved this 
theory has no advantage over the Scripture one. 

The same fact is true as to God's effective decrees, for the fact, that 
God does not choose to know the result, does not prevent His introduc- 
tion of active influences towards that result. Because a man does not 
know the decision which a judge will make in a case in court, and 
does not choose, because of the impropriety of so doing, to ascertain, 
from the judge, what will be his decision, he does not, therefore, re- 
frain from using all proper arguments to influence the judge. There 
can be no reason why God, in ignorance of what will be the decision, 
could not exert every influence which would be possible, if that de- 
cision were known to Him. He could only exert such influences as, 
under the circumstances, would be just, and right. He could do this 
only in accordance with the nature of His creatures, in strict conform- 
ity to the laws of the human mind. Therefore, it may be affirmed, as 
true, that, even under His efficient decrees, when He knows the result, 
His creatures are left as free as they could be, were it unknown to 
Him. 

(2.) The chief objection, to this theory, is, that it is based upon a 
wrong conception of the relation of the will of God to His nature. 
That will does not confer the attributes of His nature, dor does it 
control them, but is itself influenced by them. God knows all things, 
not because He wills to know them, but, because, from His nature, Tie 
has infinite knowledge, knowledge of all things possible,- and knowl- 
edge of all things certain. If, by His will, He could refrain from 
knowing, He would change His nature. As well speak of a man not 
choosing to see, with his eyes open, the objects presented to his sight, 
as of God not choosing to know anything, whether that be only some- 
thing which is possible, or something which in any way has been made 
certain. % 

3. There is, beside the theories already referred to, the ordinary 
Arminian theory. This is, that God know all things that will come 
to pass, but does not decree all, but only some of them. The decisions 
of free agents are among those things which He is supposed not to 
decree. 

(1.) The manifest objection to this theory is, that it does not 
accord with the statements of the Bible, fhis will be subsequently 
shown, by the passages of Scripture which will be advanced, in proof 
of the various points involved in the ordinary Calvinistic theory. 



135 Abstract of Theology. 

(2.) But a second objection will be found in the fact that this 
theory does not thus secure that freedom from certainty, in the decis- 
ions of free agents, which is the great reason of the objections to the 
decrees of God concerning them. 

If, by decreeing such decisions, is meant effectively causing them, 
it is true that God does not decree all things ; for, while he effectually 
causes some, He only permissively decrees others. Hence the objec- 
tion to the word "decree," and the previous suggestion of the words 
"purpose" or "plan." 

But, if God knows that any event will occur, and can prevent it, 
and does not, it is evident that He purposes that it shall exist, and 
makes it a part of his plan. 

His knowledge of the futurity of any event, makes it as certain as 
any purpose he could form effectively to cause it. That knowledge is 
perfect, and infallible. What He knows will come to pass, must 
necessarily take place. Otherwise, He would know a thing as future, 
which will not be future. His knowledge of it would be false. He 
would be Himself deceived. To suppose then, that He knows it as 
certain, when it is not certain, is to deny His infinite knowledge, and 
to reduce this theory to the plane of one, or the other, of those pre- 
viously mentioned. 

(3.) Neither does this theory accomplish another object ior which 
it is introduced, namely, to secure such a relation of God to the free act 
of man as shall take away the influence upon it exerted by His decree. 

His decree, to permit it, is as hidden from His creatures as His 
knowledge that they will so act, and can have no other influence 
upon them than that knowledge. 

The only apparent advantage is that God is supposed thus not 
to interfere with their free agency, so as to destroy their account- 
ability. But we have seen that, so far as the permissive decree 
is concerned, the knowledge of the event is as effective in making 
it certain, and in influencing the free agent, as would be any decree, 
purpose, or plan of God. It is only, when the decree is effective, and 
introduces means for its accomplishment, that the free agency is 
affected. In this case, God does not destroy the free agency, although 
He exerts an influence towards the result. But, that God does thus 
act sometimes, as in His gracious influences upon men, is held as firmly 
by Arminians, as Calvinists. In all such gracious acts, both parties 
claim that He acts both mercifully and justly. Calvinists extend 
these acts no farther than do Arminians, for they deny, as streneously 



Abstract of Theology. 136 

as others, that God acts effectively, to lead men to wicked decisions, 
and acts. So far as the nature of God's actions upon free agents is 
concerned, both parties agree. But the Arminian theory, in asserting 
foreknowledge without purpose, and in alleging that the foreknowl- 
edge is all that there is in God, is contrary to the relations of God's will 
to His knowledge; as well as to the statements of Scripture, about the 
decrees of God; while it leaves the event equally certain, supposes 
fully as much influence over the will of the creature, and has equal 
difficulty in reconciling the free agency, and consequent responsibility* 
with the inevitable certainty of the event. 

The chief difficulty, connected with the doctrine of decrees, arises 
from the existence of sin. According to that doctrine, sin has not 
accidentally occurred, nor was it simply foreknown, but it was a part 
of the plan and purpose of God, that it should exist. The difficulty 
is freely admitted. In this respect, the dispensation of God is sur- 
rounded with "clouds and darkness." 

The following statements, however, may be made : 

(1.) That, its being a part of the purpose\ or plan of God, renders 
its presence no more difficult of explanation than that He should have 
foreknown its appearance, and not exerted His unquestioned power to 
prevent it. 

(2.) That, amid all the darkness, we can yet see that God is so 
overruling sin, as to cause it greatly to redound to His glory, and the 
happiness of His creatures. 

(3.) That, even without any explanation of it, we can rest in our 
knowledge of the justice, wisdom, and goodness of God. 

(4.) That we cannot see how its possible entrance into the 
world could have been prevented, consistently with the creation of 
beings with moral natures, endowed w T ith free will, necessarily fallible, 
because mere creatures, who were to be tried upon any method of 
probation; while the right, thus to put on probation, without such in- 
fluence as would make His creatures certainly persevere in holiness, is 
one which none could justly deny to God. But, that which God could 
possibly (under any contingency,) permit, cannot, if it has actual 
existence, militate against His pure and holy character. 

The Scriptural authority for the doctrine of decrees will appear 
from the following statements and references, gathered from Hodge's 
Outlines, pp. 205-213 : 



137 Abstract of Theology, 

1. God's decrees are eternal. Acts 15:18; Eph, 1:4; .3:11; 
1 Pet, 1:20; 2 Thess. 2=13 ; 2 Tim. 1=9; 1 Cor. 2=7. 

2. They are immutable. Ps. 33=11 ; Isa. 46:9. 

3. They comprehend all events. 

(1.) The Scriptures assert this of the whole system in general, 
embraced in the divine decrees. Eph. 1:11 ; Acts 17:26 ; Dan. 4=34,35. 

(2.) They affirm the same of fortuitous events. Prov. 16=33 ; 
Matt. 10:29,30. 

(3.) Also of the free actions of men. Eph. 2:10,11; Phil. 2:13. 

(4.) Even the wicked actions of men. Acts 2:23 : 4=27,28; 13=29; 

1 Pet. 2:8 ; Jude. 4; Rev. 17=17. As to the history of Joseph, com- 
pare Gen. 37:28, with Gen. 45=7.8, and Gen. 50:20. See also Ps. 17:13,14- 
Isa. 10:5.15. 

4. The decrees of God are not conditional. Isa. 14:24,27 ; 46=10 : 
Ps. 33:11: Prov. 19=21 ; Rom. 9=11; Eph. 3:11. 

5. They are sovereign. Isa, 40=13,14 : Dan. 4:35 ; Rom. 9:11,15-18 ; 
Eph. 1:5.11: Matt. 11:25,26. 

6. They include the means. 2 Thess. 2:13 ; 1 Pet. 1:2, Eph. 1:4. 

7. They determine the free actions of men. Acts 4:27,28 ; Eph. 
2=10. 

8. God Himself works, in His people, that faith, and obedience 
which are called the conditions of salvation. Phil. 2:13; Eph. 2=8; 

2 Tim. 2=25. 

9. The decree renders the event certain. Luke 18:31-33 ; 24:46 : 
Acts 2:23 ; 13:29; 1 Cor. 11:19 ; Matt, 16:21. 

10. While God has decreed the free acts of men, the actors have 
been none the less responsible. Gen. 50:20 ; Acts 2:23 ; 3=18 ; 4:27,28. 



Abstract of Theology. 138 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE XIV. 



THE TRINITY. 

The Scripture doctrine of the Trinity is set forth, in the abstract of 
principles of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in these words: 

"God is revealed to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each, with 
distinct personal attributes; but without division of nature, essence, or 
being." Art. III. 

The peculiarity of this definition is, that it is a mere statement of 
the scriptural facts revealed, while, at. the same time, it includes 
every point involved in the doctrine of the Trinity as held by ortho- 
dox christians of all ages. There is no addition to the Scripture facts, 
but the complete exhibition, which these words make of the doctrine, 
shows that it has been correctly formulated from what God has Him- 
self revealed. . As He alone can know, and reveal what He is, so we 
must accept His statements, however mysterious, and incomprehen- 
sible may be His revelation. 

This definition suggests to us a method of treatment, by which, in 
the utmost simplicity, and scripturalness, the whole truth, on this im- 
portant subject, may be attained. 

I. The Relation of Father, and Son. 

God is revealed to us as the Father; not merely, in the general way 
in which He is called the Father of all created beings, and they His 
sons ; nor in that, in which He is the Father of those who are His 
sons, in virtue of the adoption which is in Christ Jesus; but the Father, 



139 Abstract of Theology. 

as indicative of a special relation, between Him, and another person, 
Christ Jesus, whom the Scriptures call His only begotten Son. There 
are several classes of Scripture passages which reveal this. 

1. That class in which, in recognition of this relation, Christ ad- 
dresses God, as "Father." Matt, 11:25.26; Mark 14=36; Luke 10 : 21; 
22:42; 23:34.36.46. John 12:27.28 ; 17:1.5.11.24.25. 

2. That class, in which Christ speaks of Him as peculiarly His Fa- 
ther. The expression "our Father" is never used by Him, except in 
the Lord's prayer w T hen He is teaching the disciples how to pray. 
Matt. 10=32.33; 15=13; 16:17; 18:10.19; 20=23; 24:36; 25:34; 26:29. 
39.42.53. Luke 2:49; 22=29; 24:49; John 5:17.30.43; 6:32.65; 8:19. 
28.38.49.54; 10:17.18.25 29.30.32.37; 12:26; 14:7.12.20.21.23.28; 15:1. 
8.10.15.23; 16.10; 18:11; 20=17.21. £ev. 2:27; 3=5. 

In Ephesians 3:14. Paul calls God, "the Father of our Lord Jesus 

Christ." ' 

3. That class, in which the Father is spoken of as sending, and as 
giving the Son. 

This does not include the many passages, in which Christ is said to 
be sent, but only those, in which He is referred to as sent by the 
Father. John 3116.17; 5=37; 6=37-40.57; 8=16-20; 10:36; John 
11=41.42; 12=45.49; 14:24; 17=18; 20=21. 

4. A fourth class represents the Father as knowing, and loving 
the Son. Matt. 11=27; Lake 10=22: John 3:35; 5:20. 

5. There is, also, a class in which Christ, and the Father, are said 
to be co-workers, or in which the works of Christ are claimed to be 
the Father's witness to Him. John 5=17; 10=25.32.36.37.57. 

6. That class, in which the Father is said to put special honour on 
the Son. John 3=35; 5=23.25.26.27. 

7. There is yet another class, in which peculiarity of relation is 
shown by such terms, as 

(1.) "My beloved Son;" the language is very strong, and em- 
phatic, "my Son, the beloved." Matt, 3:17; 17:5. Mark. 1:11. 
Luke 3:22; 2. Pet, 1.17. 

(2.) "Only begotten Son." John 1:14.18; 3:16.18; 1. John 4-9. 

(3.) "His own son." Rom. 8=32. In connection with this, it should 
be remembered that, in John 5:18, the charge, made against Christ 



Abstract of Theology. 140 

by the Jews, was that He "called God His own Father making him- 
self equal with God." [See Canterbury Revision.] 

8. The statements, that the Son alone has seen, and know T n, and 
revealed the Father, also show peculiarity of this relationship. John 
1:18; 14:6-11; 17:25.26, 

9. The same peculiarity is shown by the manner in which Christ 
speaks of the works He does, by virtue of it. See His Sabbath day 
discourse after curing the man at the pool of Bethesda. John 5:19-32. 
36.37; also, John 14:10.11. 

II. This Father is God. 

The relation, pointed out above, is one borne by Christ, to the Su- 
preme God. It is He, whom the Scriptures call God, in the true sense 
of that word, to whom Christ is said, by them, to be Son to the Father. 

1. There are the passages, which expressly call Christ Son of God. 
All are here omitted where the name is given by devils, or by the 
Centurion, or in any other way in which the authority of inspired 
teaching may not be claimed for its use. 

Mark 1:1; Luke 1=35; John 5:25; John 10:36; John 11:27; Acts 
3:13; 9:20; Gal. 4:4; 2. Cor. 110; 1. John 4:15; 5:5.20.21. 

2. There are other passages in which the epithet "God" is ascribed 
to the Father in this relationship. 

John 1:18; 3:16.17; 5: 18; Acts 3:13.26; Rom. 1=1.3.4; 8:31.32; 
2. Pet. 1:17; 1. John 4=9.10; 2. John 3. 

III. This Son is God. 

1. He is expressly called God. It is not denied that this epithet, 
like that of Lord is applied in an inferior sense to others. The mere 
use of these titles, would not prove that the one, to whom they are 
attributed, has the divine nature. But the manner in which they are 
applied to Christ, and the frequency of that application, become, along 
with the other evidences presented, an incontestable proof, that He, 
as well as the Father, is true God. If they were not ascribed to Christ 
in the Scriptures, their absence would be conspicuous, and well fitted 
to cast doubt on the other evidence. Matt. 1:23; John LI; 20:28; 
Rom. 9:5; Titus L3; Heb. 1:8. 



141 Abstract of Theology. 

In the above are omitted, as, on various grounds, doubtful; Acts 
20=28; 1. Tim. 3:16; and 1. John 5.20. An exegetical study of these 
passages will show, that they strongly corroborate the doctrine that 
Christ is God. 

2. Christ is also called Lord. This title is used in both the Old 
and New Testaments still more generally, than is that of God. But 
the difference of its application is very manifest. An examination of 
the texts, here quoted will show that, in a peculiar sense, one only 
suited to Christ as God, is it applied' to him. Matt. 12:8; 22:41-45, 
Mark 2:28; Luke 6=46; 2141-44; John 13=13; Acts 10 : 36; Rom. 14=9; 
1. Cor. 2=8; Gal. 1:3; 6=18; Phil. 2:11; 2. Thess. 2:16;. 2. John 3; 
Rev. 17 14; 19=13.16. 

3. He is a peculiar object of worship. The worship paid to him 
is, not merely that reverential respect offered to kings, and others in 
authority, but such worship as was refused by the Apostles with' 
horror, because they were mere men, (Acts 14:13-15), and against 
which, as paid to him, even the mighty angel (Revelation 19:10; 22=9,) 
earnestly protested. All doubtful cases of worship are here omitted, 
even that of the wise men, (Matt 2:2.11,) in which perhaps divine 
worship was paid. Matt. 14:33; Luke 24:52; Acts 7:59.60; 2. Cor. 

'12:8.9; Phil. 2:10; Heb. 1:6; 2. Pet. 3=18; Rev. 5=8-13; 7=9.10. 

4. He is to be honoured equally with the Father. John 5:23; 
Eph. 2=10.11. 

5. His relations to the Father are those of identity, and unity. 
John 1:18; 5=17-19; 8:16.19.20; 10:30; 12=44.45; 14:7-11; 15:24; Heb. 
1:3; Col. 1:15.19; 2=9; 1. John 2=23.24; 2. John 9. 

6. They are equally known to each other, and unknown to all 
others. Matt. 11=27; Luke 10=22; John 1=18; 6=46; 10=15. 

7. He is the creator of all things. John 1=3.10; 1. Cor. 8:6; 
Eph. 3=9; Col. 1;16; Heb. 1:10; Rev. 3=14. 

8. He upholds, and preserves all things. Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3; 

9. He is the manifestation ot the Divine Being in this world. 
John 1:10.14; 14=9; 16:28-30; Col. 1:15; 1, John 1:2; 1. Tim. 3:16. 

10. He is greater than all others; greater than Moses, and David, 
and Solomon, and Jonah, and the Baptist, and not greater than man 
only, but than all the spiritual intelligences of the universe. Matt; 
3:11; 12:41.42; Mark 12:37; Luke 11:81.32; John 1:17; Eph. 1:21; 
Phil. 2:9; Heb. 1:4.5; 3:3. 1. Pet. 3=22. 



Abstract of Theology. 142 

11. He is the source of all spiritual blessing. 

(a.) He gives the Holy Spirit. Luke 2449; John 16:7; 20:22; 
Acts 2:53. 

(b.) He forgives sins. Mark 2:5.6.7.10; Luke 5:20.21; 747-49; 
Acts 5:31. 

(c.) He gives peculiar peace. John 14:27; 16:33. Is not he the 
one who is called "God of peace". Eom. 15:33; 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:11; 
Phil. 4:9; 1. Thess. 5:23; Heb: 13:20. 

(d.) He gives light. John 1:4.7.8.9; 8:12; 9:5; 12:35.46; 1. John 
1.5-7; Rev. 21:23; 22:5. 

(e.) He gives faith. Luke 17:5; Heb. 12:2. 

(f.) He gives eternal life. John 17:2. 

(g.) He confers all the spiritual gifts bestowed upon His churches. 
Eph. 4:8-13. 
• 12. All the incommunicable attributes of God are ascribed to him. 

(a.) Self existence. He has power over His own life, John 2:19; 
10:17.18. He has life in himself, as has the Father. John 5:26. 

(b.) Eternity of existence. John 1:1.2; 17:5.24; Heb. 1:8.10-12; 
1. John 1:2. 

(c.) Omniscience. Matt. 9:4; 12:25; Mark 2:8; Luke 6:8; 9:47; 
10:22; 20:23; John 1:48; 2:24.25; 10:15; 16:30; 21:17; Col. 2:3; 
Rev. 2:23. 

(d.) Omnipresence. Matt. 18:20; 28:20; John 3:13; Eph. 1:23. 

(e.) Omnipotence. Matt. 28:18; Luke 21:15; John 1:3; 10:18; 
1. Cor. 1:24; Eph. 1:22; Phil. 3:21; Col. 2:10; Rev. 1:18. 

(f.) Immutability. Heb. 1:11.12; 13:8. 

13. The judgment of the world is entrusted to him. Matt. 7:32; 
16:27; 24:30; 25:31; John 5:22.27; Acts 10:42; 17:31; Rom. 2:16; 
14:10; 2. Cor. 5:10; 2. Tim. 4:1; Rev. 1 :7; 22:12. 

14. Absolute equality with the Father is ascribed to Him. This 
shows that the unity, and identity, before referred to, is not one of 
will, but of nature, and, that the names, and worship, and attributes 
of God, are not bestowed on any other ground, than that He is true 
God. 

(a.) Equality in works. John 5:17-23. 

(b.) Equality in knowledge. Luke 10:22; John 10:15. 

(c.) Equality in nature. John 5:18; 10:32; Phil. 2:6; Col. 2:9; 
Heb. 1:3. 



143 Abstract of Theology. 

It will be seen, by the foregoing statements, that the Scriptures 
distinctly teach the existence of God in the personal relations of Father, 
and Son, and that each of them is God. No reference has been made' 
to the Old Testament, in proof of the divinity of Christ. The new 
Testament is the most natural source of such instruction, because it 
reveals to us the fulfilment of God's purpose in sending His Son into 
the world, and teaches us clearly his nature, and relation, to the 
Father. What the nature of this relation, of Son, and Father, is, will 
be hereafter examined, in the discussion of the eternal Sonship of 
Christ. What the Old Testament says of Christ, will also be pre- 
sented in connection with his Messiahship. 

There remains, however, to be shown that 

IV. The Father and Son have Distinct Personal 
Attributes. 

This fact is so manifest, from the manner in which the Scripture 
speaks of each, as to need but brief discussion. 

The mere use of the names, Father and Son, points out a relation 
between two persons. That to each of them is ascribed the attributes of 
character, such as love, hate, goodness, mercy, truth and justice, which 
can only exist in, and be exercised by persons, shows separate person- 
ality. Especially is this personality seen in the distinction between 
the will of the Father, and that of the Son, which is set forth in such 
passages, as Matt. 26:39.42; Mark. 14:36; Luke 22:42; John 4;34; 
and 5:30. Neither, except through distinct personal relation, can 
mutual love be said to be exercised, as by Christ to the Father. John 
14:31; and by the Father to Christ,- John 3;35; 5:20; 10;17; 14:31; 
17:24. Manifestly, also, there must be two persons, when one is said 
to send, and another to be sent, one to give, and another to be given, 
one to teach, and another to be taught, one to show, and another to 
be shown, one to receive power, and another to bestow it, one to be 
declared, as to another, to be "the brightness of His glory, and the 
express image of His person," and, that being in the form of that other, 
he "counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God." Phil. 2:6. 
[Canterbury Revision.] 

We have here, therefore, not the one God, manifesting Himself, 
sometimes as Father, and sometimes as Son, but a distinction of per- 
sons in the Godhead, in which we are taught that, in that Godhead. 



Abstract ©f Theology. 144 

there exists a personal relation of Father to Son, and Son to Father, 
with the distinct individuality, and personality of each. 

V. The Holy Spirit a Person. 

The Scriptures designate, by se-veral very similar terms, the third 
form of personality revealed in the Godhead. He is called "the Spirit" 
"the Spirit of God,'' "the Holy Spirit," "my Spirit," "the Spirit of 
the Lord," the Spirit of Christ," "thy good spirit." "the Spirit of 
glory," '-the Spirit of grace, "the Spirit of knowledge, and under- 
standing, the Spirit of counsel, and might, the spirit of knowledge, 
and of the fear of the Lord," "the holy Spirit of promise," "the 
Spirit of truth," and "the Spirit of wisdom." Christ also called Him 
"the Comforter," and "another Comforter." 

The divine Spirit, thus denominated, must either, be some power, or 
influence, exerted by God, or a distinct person in the Godhead. It 
cannot be simply the spiritual part of God, as is the spirit in man, for 
God is not compounded of spirit, and body. This is manifest from His 
immateriality. Neither can it be in any way a part of His spiritual 
nature, as sometimes a distinction is made, in man, between his mind, 
and spirit, or his soul, and spirit. The perfect simplicity of God, 
which forbids all composition, makes this impossible. It is, therefore, 
either God Himself exercising some power, or influence, or a person 
in the Godhead. An examination of the Scripture shows that it is 
the latter, 

1. The evidences of personal action show, that the Spirit is not 
merely a power, or influence from God, but is either God Himself or 
a divine person. 

(1.) The Scriptures speak of the Spirit in a state of activity. Gen. 
1:2; Matt. 3:16; Acts 8:39. The language in these passages may be 
anthropomorphic, but the state of activity taught is undoubtedly real. 

(2.) They declare that the Spirit teaches, and gives instruction. 
Luke 12:12; John 14:26; 16:8.13.14; Acts 10:19; 1. Cor. 12:3. 

(3.) The Spirit is also spoken of, by them, as a witness of Christ to 
his people. John 15:26. 

(4.) They also assert, ihzj, He witnesses to them, that they are the 
children of God. Rom. 8:16; 2. Cor. 1:22; 5:5; Eph. 1:13.14; 4:30. 

(5.) He is spoken of as leading the sons of God. Rom. 8:14. 

(6.) He is also said to dwell within them, in such a way, that His 
presence is that of God. John 14:16.17; Rom. 8:9.11; 1. Cor. 3:16.17; 
6:19. 



145 Abstract of •Theology. 

(7.) We are taught that He is grieved. Eph. 4:30. 

(8.) Ananias is, charged with having lied co Him, Acts. 5:3. 

(9.) Blasphemy against Him is the unpardonable sin. Matt. 
12:31.32. 

(10.) He is spoken of as resisted by men. Acts 7:51. 

(11.) Also as vexed by them. Isa 63:10. 

(12.) As striving with them. Gen. 6:3; Isa 63;10; Acts. 7:51. 

(13.) As inspiring men. Acts 2:4; 8-29; 13 ; 2; 15 : 28; 2. Pet. 121. 

(14.) As interceding for them. Eom. 8:26.27. 

(15.) As bestowing diversities of gifts. 1. Cor. 12 : 4-10. 

In all these cases there is personal activity, thought, and feeling. 
What is thus declared, cannot be true of a mere power, or influence. 
The only question can be, whether this person is God, distinct from any 
plurality of personal relations, or whether He is another personality 
in the divine nature. 

2. The Scriptures show that He is a separate person from the Fa- 
ther, and the Son. 

(1.) It is stated that He proceeds from the Father. John 1526. 
A personal being, proceeding from a person, cannot be that person 
himself. The proofs, above given, therefore, of His personal action, 
and emotion, show, that this Spirit is another person. 

(2.) He is given, or sent by the Father, Luke 40:13; John 14:16.26; 
Acts 532, and by the Son, John 15 26; 16:7; Acts 233. He that is 
sent cannot be identical with Him, that sends. 

(3.) He is called the Spirit of the Father. Eph. 3 : 16, and also 
the Spirit of the Son. Rom. 8:9; Gal. 46, perhaps also 2. Thess. 2^8. 

(4.) The Son is said to send the Spirit from the Father. John 
15-26, and God is said to send the Spirit of the Son, Gal. 4-6. 

(5.) The Spirit is distinguished from the Father, and the Son, in 
passages which directly connect them with each other. Matt. 316.17; 
28:19; John 1126; 15:26; 1613; Acts. 2:33; Eph. 218; 1. Cor. 
121-6; 2. Cor. 13:14; 1. Pet, 1;2. 

(6.) The personality of the Spirit, is also ably argued from "the use 
of the personal pronouns in relation to Him", by Dr. Charles Hodge 
Sys. Theol. Vol. 1, p. 524. Not only are personal pronouns used by 
the Spirit, and of the Spirit, but there is a departure from gramma- 
tical rule, in the use of a masculine pronoun in connection with a 
neuter noun, unless the masculine is warranted by the fact, that a 
person is referred to who may be called "He." 



Abstract of Theology. * 146 

VI. The Holy Spirit is God. 

So completely do the Scriptures identify the Spirit with the Su- 
preme God, that the fact of His personality having been established, 
His essential divinity will at once be admitted. In the discussion of 
the Trinity, therefore, the point of necessary proof, as to the Spirit, is 
His personality, while, that, as to the Son, is His divinity. The 
abundant proof of the divinity of the Spirit is found, 

1. In the passages which call Him the Spirit of God, and the Spirit 
of the Lord, as well as those in which God calls Him "my Spirit". 
These are conclusive, in like manner, as is the divinity of Christ from 
those which call Him the Son of God. The titles "Spirit of God," and 
"Spirit of the Lord," are each used about twenty-five times in the 
Bible. "My Spirit" is used in reference to God's Spirit in Gen. 6:3; 
Prov. 1:23; Isa 44:3; 59:2L; Ezek. 36=27; 39:29; Joel 2:28; Haggai2:5; 
Zech. 4:6; Matt. 12=18; Acts 2:17.18. 

2. The writers of the New Testament declare that certain things, 
which in the Old Testament are ascribed to Jehovah, were said by the 
Spirit. Compare Acts 28=25-27, and Heb. 3=7-9, with Isaiah 6:9, and 
also, Heb. 9=8, with Ex. 25=1, and 30=10. 

3. The sacred writers of the Old Testament were the messengers 
of God, and spake for Him, yet the influence, by which they became 
such, is called in the New Testament the Holy Ghost. Compare Luke 
1=70 with 2. Peter 1=21; 2. Tim. 3=16, and Heb. 1=1 with 1. Pet. 1=11: 
also, Jer. 31:31.33.34, with Heb. 10=15-17. 

4. The creation of the world is ascribed to the Spirit. Gen. 1:2; 
Job 26=13; Ps. 104:30. 

5. He is said to search, and know even the deep things of God. 
1. Cor. 2=10. 

6. He is spoken of as omnipresent. Ps. 139=7-10, and omniscient. 
Ps. 139=11; 1. Cor. 2:10. 

7. The divinity of the Spirit is peculiarly proved by His influen- 
ces over Christ. It having been shown, that Christ, the Son, is God. 
the connection of the Spirit of God with Christ, though it were only 
in His human nature, is a convincing proof that the Spirit, which is 
not a mere power of God, but a person as we have seen above, must be 
also God. 

(1.) In His birth. Matt. 1:18.20; Luke 1:31-35. 
(2.) Mental and spiritual influences, from the Spirit, were predic- 
ted. Isa 11:2, and Isaiah 61:1. 



147 Abstract of Theology. 

(a.) And these were fulfilled, at His baptism. Matt. 3 : 16; John 
1:33. 

(b.) At the time of the temptation in the wilderness. Matt. 4:1; 
Mark 1:12. 

(c.) In His preaching. Luke 4:14.18-21. 

(d.) In His casting out devils. Matt. 12 : 28. 

(3.) This spiritual influence was without measure. John 3:34. 

(4.) By the Spirit, also, was Christ "quickened after He was put to 
death in the flesh." 1. Pet. 3:18. 

8. The indwelling of the Spirit, in the people of God, is said to 
make them the temple of God. Compare 1. Cor. 3:16, and 6:19 with 
2. Cor. 6=16, and Eph. 2:22. 

9. The Spirit is expressly called God, in connection with the false- 
hood of Ananias and Sapphira. Acts. 5:3.4.9. 

VII. The Three Revealed Distinctly. 

The scriptural proofs of the personality, and divinity of the Father, 
Sou, and Holy Spirit, having now been considered, it is proper to no- 
tice a few passages of Scripture, in which the Three are revealed dis- 
tinctly, by being mentioned, or manifested together. 

1. At the baptism of Christ are seen the Son who has just been 
baptized, and the Spirit ot God descending like a dove," while from 
heaven above, and therefore, from the Father, and not from the Spirit, 
who is thus manifested distinctly from the Father, is heard "a voice," 
"saying, this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." 

2. An equally plain distinction is set forth, in the language of 
Christ, Matt. 28:19, in which He commanded baptism to be performed 
"in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 
This act of baptism is such as to involve the divinity, as well as the 
personality of the Three; for it is an act of worship, such as can be 
paid to God only; it is a profession of faith in God, and His righteous- 
ness, which can be due to God only; and it is a pledge of fealty, such 
as God has plainly taught He will share with no other. • 

3. In our Lord's last discourse, He promises to send "the Com- 
forter," "which is the Holy Ghost," "from the Father, even the Spirit 
of truth which proceedeth from the Father." Here the Son sends, 
the Spirit is sent, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father. He is 
also referred to as one "whom the Father will send in my name.'' See 
John 14:26, and 15:26. 



Abstract of Theology. 148 

4. The apostle Paul evidently refers to this same Three, when He 
writes to the Corinthians of "the same Spirit," "the same Lord," and 
"the same God." 1. Cor. 12:1-6. 

5. The benediction, with which Paul closes his second epistle to 
the Corinthians, also presents unitedly, yet separately, the same Three; 
certain blessings are invoked, but with no apparent distinction of rank 
among those of whom they are asked. If there be any prominence, 
it is given the rather to the Son, than the Father. 

VIII. These Three are one God. 

Our definition states, that these Three are revealed as without divi- 
sion of nature, essence, or being. It is not intended to indicate, by the 
use of these three words, any wide distinction between them. They 
are nearly alike. Yet some distinction exists. By nature is meant, that 
peculiar character of being, which makes one kind of being to differ 
from another. Thus we speak of the divine nature, or the angelic 
nature, or the human nature, or the brute nature, meaning that pecu- 
liarity of life, and character, and personal condition, which makes a 
God, or an angel, or a man, or a brute. By essence is meant, that 
peculiarity, in the nature itself, which constitutes what is necessary 
to its existence, so that we cannot say, in the absence of that essence, 
that such a nature exists. Take away from human nature that 
which is its essential quality, and it must cease to be human nature. 
Being is the essence of any nature becoming actually existent in that 
nature. In God nature, and essence, must be identical; because every 
thing, in the nature of God, is necessary to His existence, and conse- 
quently, the nature can neither be greater, nor less than the essence; 
indeed they must be the same. . Neither can being be separated from 
the nature, and essence of God, though it is not identical with them. 
The necessity of His actual existence is something inherent in His 
nature. There could be no such nature without necessarily involving 
the existence of some person, or persons in it. 

When it is affirmed, therefore, that there is no "division of nature, 
essence, or being," all that is meant, is simply that there is but 
one God; that such is the divine nature that it cannot be multi- 
plied, or divided, or distributed, any more than God can be thus 
divided in His omnipresence with all things. The divine nature 
is so possessed, by each of the person's in the Trinity, that neither 
has His own separate divine nature, but each subsists in one divine 



149 Abstract of Theology. 

nature, common to the three. Otherwise the three persons would be 
three Gods. So also, in that divine nature, its esssential quality is 
not divided in its relation, through the nature, to the persons. Were 
this so, there would be three separate parts of the divine nature. 
But that this cannot be is manifest from the identity in- God of 
nature, and essence. That it is not so, is declared by the Scrip- 
tures, when they teach, that there is but one God. In God there 
is also but one divine being, because there is but one divine essence, 
and nature. There is but one that can have actuality of existence. 
The being of person, not being identical with that of nature, a fact 
w T hich is true of all natures, created, or uncreated, the unity of the 
nature, and of the essence does not forbid plurality of persons. The 
threeness of the persons, therefore, does not destroy the unity of 
the nature, or essence, and consequently, not that of the being of 
God. 



The Scriptures teach everywhere the unity of God explicitly, 
and emphatically. There can be no doubt that they reveal a God 
that is exclusively one. But their other statements, which we have 
been examining, should assure us that they also teach that there 
are three divine Persons. It is this peculiar two-fold teaching, 
which is expressed by the word ''Trinity." The revelation, to us, 
is not that of Tritheism, or Three Gods; nor of Triplicity, which is three- 
foldness, and would involve composition, and be contrary to the 
simplicity of God; nor of mere manifestation of one person in three 
forms, which is opposed to the revealed individuality of the per- 
sons; but it is well expressed by the word Trinity, which is de- 
clarative, not simply of threeness, but ol three-oneness [Trinity.] 
That this word is not found in Scripture is no objection to it, when 
the doctrine, expressed by it, is so clearly set forth. 



Abstract of Theology. • 150 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE XV. 



Personal Relations in Trinity. 

The Scripture doctrine of the Trinity, as we have seen, presents 
three persons occuping mutual relations to each other. There conse- 
quently arise certain questions as to these relations. What is their 
nature ? What has originated them ? When did they begin ? In what 
respects do they differ from each other? Is there perfect equality be- 
tween the persons ? If there be any kind of subordination, in what 
does it consist ? 

These questions will be best answered, first by some general state- 
ments applicable to all the relations; next by special consideration of 
the Sonship of Christ, and of the Procession of the Spirit; followed by 
an examination of the equality, and subordination of the Son, and 
Spirit. 

I. General Statements. 

1. The nature of these relations, can be indicated in no other forms 
than those set forth in Scripture. They are matters of pure revela- 
tion. The fact of their existence, is beyond the attainment of reason. 
Nor, after the revelation of the doctrine, has that fact been strength- 
ened by any philosophical speculations, or its. difficulties removed by 
any arguments, or illustrations from analogy. [See statements of some 
of these in Hodge's Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 478 — 482.] We 
are constrained to fall back upon the simple Scripture statements. 
The only explanations of these, which are justifiable, are such as arise 
from recognizing that, as the persons, transactions, and relations, are 



151 Abstract of Theology. 

divine, there must be separated from them all that belongs to human 
conditions, and imperfections. But this must not lead us so far as to 
deny the reality of these things, or the existence, in the highest de- 
gree, of relations of the nature indicated, of which our best concep- 
tion is gained from the terms which are used. Thus no physical gen- 
eration, nor any that could begin, or end, or be measured by succes- 
sion, can be ascribed to the Divine Father. No dependent existence, 
nor previous lack, and subsequent attainmeut of being, can. be true of 
a Son who is himself God. No communication, nor reception, of a 
portion of the divine essence, or nature, is possible between two divine 
persons. If the term "begotten" is intended to teach a communication 
of the divine essence to the Son by the Father, it must be one of the 
whole essence, otherwise there would no longer be only one God, one 
Divine nature, or essence. So also, when the Spirit" proceeds from the 
Father, there can be no breathing out of a part of the Divine na- 
ture, nor can that breathing begin, or end, or exist in successive mo- 
ments of time. These internal acts in God necessarily conform to 
that eternity, and unity, of the nature of God, which exist even in His 
purposes towards all things which are without. All human imper- 
fections must be removed. But, this being done, the Scripture teach- 
ings must be accepted, with unquestioning belief that relations, cor- 
responding to these titles, exist in God, and that they, and the causes 
assigned for them, are duly expressed by the language of His word. 
2. These relations exist in the nature of God. They are not revela- 
tions to us of what God is not; but of what He is. It is because God 
is one in three persons, and because the three persons are one God, 
that He thus makes Himself known to us. Though it is true that the 
Father wills to beget the Son, and the Father and Son will to send 
forth the Spirit; yet the will thus exercised, is not at mere good plea- 
sure, but it results necessarily from the nature of God, that the Father 
should thus will the begetting, and the Father, and the Son the send- 
ing forth. The will, thus exercised, is not like that of His purposes, in 
which God acts of free pleasure, choosing between various purposes 
which He might form; but, like that by which He necessarily wills 
His own existence. Otherwise, these relations might, or might not, 
have existed; but if this were possible, the Son, and the Spirit, would 
only have been creatures of God, however exalted might have been their 
nature, or extraordinary their faculties. Theirs would only have been 
contingent existence, until made certain by the will of God. None of 
the incommunicable attributes of God could have been ascribed to 
them. In no sense could they have had self existence, or eternity of ex- 



Abstract of Theology. 152 

istence, or independent existence, or immutability of nature. When, 
therefore, we find the Scriptures assigning such attributes to any other 
persons than the Father, we have conclusive evidence that the 
divine nature of these persons is perfectly equal to that of the Father; 
and when it is also asserted, that God is but one, and yet that each of 
the Three is God, we are plainly taught, that all have the same undi- 
vided Divine essence, or nature. That of the Son, or of the Spirit, is 
identical with that of the Father. It is not simply a similar nature, 
but even numerically the same. Were it otherwise, there would be 
three Gods. If, however,, this be true, the relations belong to the nature 
of God, and are not something superadded to that nature. The Simpli- 
city of God is a proof of this. It could only be in a God compounded 
of nature, and relations, that the relations would not be in, and of, 
that nature itself. 

3. These relations must also be eternal. The nature heing eter- 
nal, so also must be the relations which are in, and of that 
nature. Moreover, if not eternal, they must have had a begin- 
ning, and there must have been a time when they did not exist. 
But this argues changeableness in God, in virtue of which He, who 
once was one person only, has now become three. It is no reply 
to this, that the expressions "begotten," and "proceedeth from," 
involve the idea of the antecedent existence of Him who begets, 
and from whom there is procession. For these are terms of human 
language, applied to divine actions, and must be understood suitably 
to God. There is no greater difficulty here than in other cases in 
which this principle is readily recognized. We cannot speak of the 
eternity of the life of God, without using language which implies begin- 
ning, and succession. Neither can we think of His eternal purpose, 
except as numerous determinations formed, and thought out, in succes- 
sive moments, and following upon God's infinite knowledge; which, by 
placing before Him all things possible, has presented various objects, 
and plans from which He has chosen. Nor yet can we talk of His 
presence divested of the ideas, and language that belong to space, nor 
conceive of His immensity without the fiction of infinite space. This 
has not been done even by the inspired authors of the Scriptures. 
Dealing, therefore, with the terms expressive of the divine relations, 
it is natural, and right, that we treat them after the same fashion, and 
divest them of those ideas of time, and succession; which are known 
to have no place in God. When this is done, nothing forbids the belief 
that, as these relations are in, and of the nature of God, they are 
eternal. 



153 Abstract of Theology. 

4. So far as true divinity is involved, the persons must be 
absolutely equal. As each possesses the undivided divine essence, so 
neither can, as God, be superior, or inferior to the others. No differ- 
ence in the mode, or order of subsistence in that essence, can make an 
inequality in the divinity of either of them, inasmuch as that subsist- 
ence makes all of them partakers of the same essence, undividedly of 
all of it. Even if there be inequality, relative to each other as per- 
sons, because of the respective relations, this would no more require 
one to be an inferior God to the others, than the Three separate per- 
sons make necessary such a threefold distinction in the Divine nature, 
as to constitute them three Gods. 

These general statements will shorten, and simplify the separate 
discussions as to the Sonship of Christ, and the Procession of the Spirit. 
So far as these have elements in common, a statement, and explana- 
tion of these points in each case is rendered unnecessary. They are 
also more plainly exhibited, as to both .the relations, than they could 
be separately. Moreover, we have in them answers to most of the 
questions suggested at the beginning. The nature of the relations is 
perceived to be properly indicated by the Scripture language which 
expresses them and to be such as belongs to the essence, and nature of 
God. They have originated in that essence, acting through the Person 
of the Father, and the Persons of the Son, and the Father. The per- 
fect equality in that divine nature has been seen. It remains simply 
to inquire, in what respects they differ from each other, and whether 
with the equality, relative to the divine essence, there co-exists any 
inequality of Person, or any kind of subordination. These points will 
be appropriately presented in the separate discussions of the Sonship 
of Christ, and of the Procession of the Spirit, which discussions will, 
also, throw still further light upon the questions already answered. 

II. The Eternal Sonship of Christ. 

In the previous lecture it was shown that Christ is Son of God in 
a sense peculiar to Himself. The Father called him, at his baptism, 
"My beloved Son"; and he is spoken of by the sacred writers as God's 
"only begotten Son," and "His own Son." 

The Scripture proofs were also presented, that this Son is not only 
called "God;" but possesses all the incommunicable attributes of God, 
together with such unity, and identity with the Father, as make 
him truly God; that He is equal with the Father in his works, and 



Abstract of Theology. 154 

knowledge, and nature; and, that not only to him. are all the acts of 
creation, providence, and judgment to be ascribed, but that he is to 
be honoured, and worshipped equally with the Father, he being in- 
deed the manifestation in the world, of the Divine Father, "the image 
of the invisible God," (Col. 1:15,) in whom "dwelleth all the fulness 
of the Godhead bodily," (Col. 2:9,) "being the brightness of His glory, 
and the express image of His person," (Heb. 1:3,) [the effulgence of 
His glory, and the very image of His substance.] [Canterbury Revi- 
sion.] 

These proofs of this eternal Sonship may be strengthened by further 
reference to Scripture teaching both as to the nature, and eternity of 
the relation. 

1. That the relation is one of nature, is additionally shown. 

(a.) By passages, which declare that the Son is so "from God," 
and "in God" as to have perfect knowledge of Him. John 1:18; 7:29; 
16:27-30; 17:25. He is here spoken of as proceeding from God, not 
merely being sent as a messenger. The claim asserted, is one of inti- 
mate fellowship in, and participation of, the Divine nature. It is made 
in the capacity of God's son. Consequently it betokens a Sonship of 
nature, not one of mere office, or name. 

(b.) By such passages as contrast the Divine, and human natures, 
ascribing the divine nature to the Son. Rom. 1:3.4; Phil. 2:5-11. 

(c.) The divine nature of the Sonship is plainly taught by John in 
the 1st chapter of his gospel. "The only begotten Son," which "is in the 
bosom of the Father," who alone has "seen God" and "declared Him," 
v. 18, is "the Word" that "was made flesh, and dwelt among men," v. 14, 
and yet, which was not only "in the beginning," but "was with God," 
and "was God". If the Word, and the Son are identical, the divine 
nature, ascribed to the Word, is truly the divine nature of the Son. 

2. Of the eternity of this relation, we may also find further proof. 
(1.) Christ's existence before birth in this world is taught. 

(a.) In such passages as show, that Christ, of His own will, as- 
sumed this life. John 6=38; Phil. 2=7; Heb. 2=14.16; 10=5.9. 

(b.) Such as show peculiar coming into the world. John 3:13; 
6=33.38.63. 

(c.) Where it is said, that He had seen, and known the Father; 
which implies a previous state of existence. John 6=46. 

(d.) Such passages as declare, that he, the Son, was sent into the 
world by the Father. See p. 139. 3. 



155 Abstract of Theology. 

(2.) His existence when creation occured, is announced in John 
1:3.10; Col 1:16; Heb. 1:10. 

(3.) The Scriptures also declare, that, he was in the beginning, 
before all things, when time began, which was, therefore, eternal 
existence. John 1:1; 17:5.24; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:10. 

(4.) They expressly state that it was eternal. 1. John 1-4. 

In the general statements above, it has been argued that the rela- 
tions, borne by these two persons, are to be learned only from the Scrip- 
ture revelations, and that these are to be modified, in no respect, 
except by removing from them whatever is necessary to make them 
conform to divine transactions. It was also urged that all the divine re- 
lations being in, and of God, Who, with all His plurality of person, is 
but one God, these relations are in the same undivided divine essence, 
and, consequently, belong to the nature of God, and must be eternal. 

In applying these statements, and the Scripture proofs, to the rela- 
tion, of Father and Son, in God, we arrive at the doctrine commonly 
called the Eternal Sonship of Christ. 

By this is meant, that Paternity, and Filiation in God are, not mere 
names for something which does not exist, nor for some relation, dif- 
ferent from that of Father, and Son, to which these titles were first 
applied in connection with Christ's creation, or birth, or resurrection, 
or exaltation; but are realities which exist eternally in His nature, 
and are as properly described by the names which express them as 
are His attributes by the various terms of wisdom, power, truth, jus- 
tice, and love. 

No attempt is made by those who accept this doctrine to state the 
nature of this generation. Some are even content to suppose that 
nothing more may be meant than to express by Sonship what would 
be the result of such a relation. As human sonship is accompanied 
by earnest love between father and son, as it implies likeness of 
character, and similarity of nature; so they have been willing to rest 
at this point, and accept the divine Sonship, as meaning no more than 
the existence of perfect likeness, and infinite mutual love. .But, man- 
ifestly, if nothing more than this be meant, the Father might equally 
be called Son, and the Son Father. The Scriptures, on the contrary, 
indicate that the likeness is the result of the relation, and not that 
the terms of the relation are given because of the likeness. It is not 
the resemblance of Christ to the Father which is set forth as the rea- 



Abstract of Theology. 156 

son He is called the Son, but it is because He is the Son that this 
resemblance exists; 

But, even if these titles could be ascribed because of the likeness, 
we still have to account for the use of the peculiar word "begotten." 
This is evidently intended to tell us something ot a great mystery. It 
proclaims some kind of activity in the Divine Father, and passivity in 
the Son. We cannot tell what it is, but it at least resembles, in some 
way, that impartation of nature which occurs in the act of human 
begetting, and conveys to us the, idea of the^ communication of the 
essence of God by the Father, through this act, to the Son. The con- 
tinued unity of God shows that- it is a communication of the whole 
essence, in which, however, the Father still continues to subsist, 
while imparting to the Son subsistence also in the same. Such im- 
partation must partake of the nature of the "Eternal Now", in God. 
It never began, it will never end, it has no succession, no past, and no 
future. It is the ever present, having no reference even to a past, 
or to a future. It is such a generation as constitutes eternal Son- 
ship, and Fatherhood. 

Many have rejected this doctrine because of misconceptions as to 
the nature of an Eternal Divine Sonship. 

1. They have objected to the idea of Sonship itself. 

(1.) They have urged that Sonship implies inferiority, and, there- 
fore, the Son cannot be truly God, equal with the Father. 

But how can we know what is, and what is not, possible, in this 
matter, with God? If the Scriptures assert the Divine generation, 
and the equality of the Son and the Father, why should any deny 
their consistency with each other ? 

After all, however, does Sonship imply inferiority of nature? There 
may be subordination of rank, or office. But surely there is none of 
nature. Even human sonship results from the impartation of the 
same nature by the father ; not the same numerically, but the same in 
kind, and degree, the same partitively. The son of any man partakes 
alike, and equally, with his father, in human nature. The divine 
communication only differs, from the human, in not so dividing the 
nature that two Gods result, as in human generation do two men. 

That sonship may imply inferiority of official rank, and personal 
relation, is readily admitted. It does not always do this. Such sub- 
ordination of person, indeed, seems to be taught of the Son of God to 
His Father. But it is equality, and sameness of nature, not of office, 
which makes the Son truly God. He is such, because He is a true 



157 Abstract of Theology. 

subsistence in the Divine essence, He does not cease to be such be- 
cause the Father is officially greater than He, nor, even, because the 
Father bestows, and the Son receives the communication of the divine 
essence. 

(2.) It has also been objected that Sonship implies priority of ex- 
istence, and that this is impossible as between two divine beings. 
But this is based upon a torgetfalness of the nature of eternal acts. 
Though we may not be able to explain how they are so, we neverthe- 
less know, that, in such* acts, there is no beginning, nor end, no first, 
no second, no antecedent, no consequent, indeed, no succession of any 
kind. Were it otherwise, God would exist in successive moments. He 
would have had a beginning. He would form new purposes, and 
would increase in knowledge from day to day. 

Arguing from the nature of eternal acts in God, we, therefore, 
judge that the Eternal Generation of the Son is not a single act, which 
was accomplished at'a definite moment in the divine nature ; but one 
ever continuing. With God, there may be such definitely completed 
acts, when they are performed outside of Himself, as in creation ; but, 
not when they are purely within. Such an act must be ever contin- 
uing, and completed only in the sense of its being always perfect, 
though not ended. Even the expression "continuing" is imperfect so 
far as it it involves the idea of successive moments in God. It is 
only "ever continuing" as viewed by man. Sonship in God, there- 
fore, does not imply priority of existence. Even in man paternity 
and filiation are co-existent. One becomes a father, only, when an- 
other becomes his son. Priority of existence is necessary, as a mere 
accident of human birth, because of the necesssity of growth, and ma- 
turity in a man before he can become a father. But, even here, 
the sonship, and fatherhood, exist at the same moment. In God, 
however, priority, even of the existence of one Person before another, 
can have no place, since He is self-existent, and eternal, Who 
never began to be, and Whose perfect maturity is not attained by 
growth, or increase. 

(3.) Again it is said, "If Christ is Son, if He is God of God, He is 
not self existent, and independent. But self existence, inde- 
pendence, etc., are attributes of the divine essence, and not of one per- 
son in distinction from the others. It is the Triune God, who is self 
existent, and independent. Subordination, as to the mode of subsist- 
ence, and operation, is a scriptural fact; and so also is the perfect, 
and equal Godhead of the Father, and the Son, and, therefore, these 
facts must be consistent. In the consubstantial identity of the human 



Abstract of Theology. 158 

soul, there is a subordination of one faculty to another, and so, how- 
ever incomprehensible to us, there may be a subordination in the 
Trinity consistent with the identity of essence in the Godhead." 
Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1. 474. 

2. There are objections, also made to the eternity of this relation. 
They are based upon Scripture statements, and are, on that account, 
even more worthy of consideration. 

It is. well to remember, however, that Christ is revealed to us, in 
the Scriptures, as one person in two natures, by virtue of which He 
is frequently called the Theanthropos, or Godman. The doctrine of 
his person will be hereafter discussed. It is sufficient here to state 
that, while the two natures are distinct, and preserve their respective 
attributes, and qualities, yet, because of the one personality in both 
natures, whatever belongs to the person may be attributed to either 
nature. Inasmuch then, as the Sonship expresses a mere personal re- 
lation in the Godhead, the title Son of God may be applied to Christ 
in mere human relations. That this is sometimes done, does not the«n 
destroy the force of its much more frequent application to him in his 
divine nature, and especially of such an application, when it is accom- 
panied by the ascription to him of divine titles, attributes, acts, and 
worship, together with assertions of equality, identity, and unity with 
the Father. 

"Bishop Pearson, one of the most strenuous defenders of eternal 
generation, and of all the peculiarities of the Nicene doctrine of the 
Trinity, gives four reasons why the Theanthropos, or Godman is called 
the Son of God. (1.) His miraculous conception.. (2.) The high 
office to which He was designated. (John 10:34,35.36.) (3.) His re- 
surrection, according to one interpretation of Acts 13:33, "The grave" 
he says, ''is as the womb of the earth; Christ, who is raised from 
thence, is as it were begotten to another life, and God, who raised him, 
is his Father." (4.) Because alter his resurrection, he was made the 
heir of all things. (Heb. 1:2-5.) Having assigned these reasons, why 
the Godman is called Son, he goes on to show, why the Logos is called 
Son. There is nothing, therefore* in the passages cited inconsistent 
with the church doctrine of the eternal Sonship of our Lord." Charles 
Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1. 476. 

1. The first objection to the eternity of the Sonship, is that the 
title "Son" is given because of his birth. 

This is based upon Luke 1:35. "And the angel answered, and said 
unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the 



159 Abstract of Theology. 

Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which 
shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.'' 

Upon this passage it may be remarked, as the foundation of all just 
interpretation, that no relation to the Holy Ghost which constitutes 
a personal relation in the Godhead, can refer to the Sonship, because 
that is one of Christ to the Father, and not to the Holy Ghost. Some 
other reason then, than the act of the Spirit in his conception, must 
be found for the ascription here of the title "Son of God." 

Again, it must be recognized, that the title of Son is not here proph- 
esied of in connection with the divine nature of our Lord but is 
declared of that "holy thing which shall be born/' which was un- 
doubtedly his human nature, or himself in his human nature. 

One interpretation of the passage affixes to the term "Power of the 
Highest" a personal sense, explaining it as a title of the Divine Logos. 
According to this, it is the overshadowing, and permanent abiding of 
the Divine Son, in union with the human nature conceived under the 
influence of the Holy Ghost, which will cause that "holy thing" to be 
"called the Son of God." Instances are quoted of the use of 'Tower" 
in a divine sense from Philo, and other Jewish writers. The early 
Christian fathers are stated to have applied generally, the word "power" 
to the divine nature of Christ, and many of them are quoted as main- 
taining this interpretation of this passage. Luke 8:10, and 1 Cor. 
1:24 are referred to, and the comparison of Luke 11:49 with Matt. 
23:34 recommended. [See Treffry, on the Doctrine of the Eternal Son- 
ship, 3rd edition, pp. 120-133, and 142-144.] 

If this be the mterpretation, then, it is the coming of the Eternal 
Son upon this human nature, and his presence with it, that causes it 
to be called the Son of God. 

This is, therefore, perfectly consistent with both the require- 
ments above, necessary to the true interpretation. The Spirit is 
not associated with the ascription of the title Son of God, and that 
title is appropriately given to the human nature, and yet the eternity 
of the divine Sonship is not affected. If this use of the word "Power" 
can be fully verified, no valid objection can be made to the interpre- 
tation. Treffry gives very strong proof that it is so used. 

If, however, we should adopt the more generally received interpre- 
tation, which supposes that "thepowerof the Highest" is either descrip- 
tive of the Holy Ghost, or of the Divine power wdiich accompanied 



Abstract of Theology. 160 

His coming upon Mary, there will still be no difficulty in ascribing the 
title Son of God, to the presence of the Eternal Son, who in his Divine 
personality "was made flesh and dwelt among us." John .1:14. Such 
an explanation of the tide, would alone be then consistent with his re- 
lation, both to the Father, and the Holy Ghost. The text would then 
still teach that the title Son of God is to be given to Christ as man, 
in like manner as that of Lord, because we have not here a mere hu- 
man person, but simply a human nature, in which the Divine Person, 
the Son, subsists without ceasing also to subsist in the Divine nature. 
As that Divine Person, and not the Divine nature, is the Son, so also 
the Divine Person in his human nature, and not that human nature, 
or a mere man is called Son of God. The title, therefore, though 
given to him as man, arises not from his birth, but from his Eternal 
Sonship. 

The Holy Ghost is, therefore, set forth here merely as the origina- 
tor of the human nature of Christ. That nature is from God, not act- 
ing through the divine essence, which is never affirmed of God in any 
of His acts, but through a Person in the Godhead, according to the 
usual mode as revealed to us, and as exhibited in Creation, Providence, 
and Redemption, and even in the eternal acts within the Godhead. The 
Scriptures make known no influence, or action of the Spirit on the 
Son in his Divine relations. On the contrary, the Son acts through 
the Spirit, but not the Spirit through the Son. But the instances of 
the influence of the Spirit on the human nature are abundant. At 
his birth, at his baptism, (Matt. 3=16,) in leading him to be tempted, 
(Matt. 4*4.) in the working of his miracles, (Matt. 12*28,) in his return 
from temptation, "in the power of the Spirit into Galilee," (Luke 4:14,) 
and in his giving commandments through the Holy Spirit to the 
Apostles, Acts 1*2. we have express mention of this influence.. Was it 
not to this that the author of Hebrews referred; (Heb. 10:5,)? "a 
body thou hast prepared me," [a body didst thou prepare for me. 
Canterbury Revision.] 

2. Again it is objected, that Christ did not become Son of God 
until the day of his resurrection. 

Two passages are quoted in favour of this objection. 

1, That in Rom. 1:4. "And declared to be the Son of God with 
power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from 
the dead." 



161 Abstract of Theology. 

The word translated "declared" in this passage means "deter- 
mined" "marked out as." It has no reference to a new ascription 
of title. All that is taught is that the resurrection of Christ 
plainly, and distinctly evinced, that "His Son Jesus Christ, our 
Lord" (v 3.) is the "Son of God." Of this fact the resurrection 
from the dead, of him who had constantly claimed to be the Son of 
God, is an unquestionable proof. 

(2.) The other passage is Acts 13:32.33. "And we declare unto 
you glad tidings, how that the promise that was made unto the 
fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that 
he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second 
psalm, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotton thee." 

Upon this objection, Dr. Charles Hodge says justly: "Here there 
is no reference to the resurrection. The glad tidings, which the 
Apostle announced, was not the resurrection, but the advent of the 
Messiah. That was the promise made to the fathers, which God 
had fulfilled by raising up, i. e. bringing into the world the prom- 
ised deliverer. Compare Acts 2:30; 3:22.26; 7=37, in all which 
passages where the same word is used, the "raising up" refers to 
the advent of Christ: as when it is said, "A prophet shall the 
Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me." 
The word is never used absolutely in reference to the resurrection, 
unless, as in Acts 2=32, where the resurrection is spoken of in the con- 
text. Our translators have obscured the meaning by rendering it, 
"having raised up again," instead of simply "having raised up" as 
they render it elsewhere." Sys. Theo. 1. 475. 

The Canterbury Revision has simply "raised up", omitting the word 
"again". 

We might then rest the reply to this objection upon the denial that 
the Sonship is spoken of as given in connection with the resurrection. 
But, on the other hand, we might admit it to be thus given, and yet 
the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship would not be affected. For, so 
long as we may justly confine any such declaration to the Theanthro- 
pos, it might still be true that, to the Godman, the name could thus 
be given, and, yet, all the teachings of Scripture relative to the eter- 
nity, and nature of the Divine Sonship remain true. The truth is, 
that the greater difficulty would be to establish positively that the 
title Son of God ever was bestowed upon Christ, in consequence of any 
event connected with his humanity than that it is confined to him in 



Abstract of Theology. 162 

his divine relations. At least, it is manifest from the Scriptures that, 
if ever applied to this Divine Person because of his birth, or re'surrec- 
tion, that was not the first period of such application, for the title is 
given to him in connection with the acts of creation, and he is said to 
have been before all things, their Creator, in whom they consist, who 
laid the foundations of the world, the existence of which is perishable, 
while his is eternal. 

3. A further objection is made by Arians, and others who deny the 
proper divinity of Christ, and claim that he is but a creature. 
These assert that the title Son of God was given to Christ by virtue 
of his creation. The obvious'reply to this objection, is to produce the 
Scripture teachings which prove the true Deity of the Son, especially 
such as assert, that he is God and Lord, and to be honoured, and wor- 
shipped, and that he performs all the divine acts of Creation, Provi- 
dence, and Redemption, and has all the incommunicable attributes of 
God, together with perfect equality, exact resemblance, absolute unity, 
and sameness of nature with the Father. 

The passage in Col. 1:15, has been claimed in support of this ob- 
jection; Christ being there called according to the King James Version, 
"the first born of every creature." But the true rendering is "the 
first born of all creation," and it is so translated in the Canterbury 
Revision. There is a similar passage in Rev. 3 : 14, where Christ calls 
Himself "the beginning of the creation of God." The word translated 
"beginning" in this passage, means also "the origin." It is also used 
for "the first place, or power, the sovereignty." The "first born" in 
the former passage, is the same word used in Heb. 1:6, and there trans- 
lated "first begotten." The "first created" would have been differently 
expressed in the Greek. The fact that this is a begotten Son, and not 
a created being, and that he is not said to be born at the time of Crea- 
tion, but before it, actually, shows that, the eternal generation of the 
Eternal Son, which took place before all things, is here spoken of. 
Such preexistence is plainly taught in the context of Hebrews, but it 
is directly asserted in that of Colossiatis, v. 17. 



III. The Procession of the Spirit. 

The relation of the Spirit, in the Godhead, differs from that of the 
Son in several respects. What is the ground, or reason of this, it is 



163 Abstract of Theology. 

impossible to state. The Scriptures give no information upon this 
point. ' We must be content, therefore, simply to point out what they 
reveal upon this subject. 

1. An obvious distinction is made between the names given to the 
two Persons. While the one is called the Son; the other is called 
"the Spirit," and other names of like import, as stated p. 145, V. 
That these names are indicative of some specific difference, may be 
argued from the fact, that they are never interchanged. The Spirit is 
never called the Son, nor is the Son ever called the Spirit. When it 
is remembered, that these names describe persons subsisting in the same 
Divine essence, this fact becomes very significant of some peculiar dis- 
tinction between them in the mode of such subsistence. The word 
"pneuma," which is the designation in the Greek original, means 
Spirit, breath, or wind, and seems to indicate some influence, or power 
which proceeds from God, not impersonally, but with a personal rela- 
tion in the Godhead. The work of the Spirit, in the creation, and 
government of the world, in the inspiration of the sacred writers, in 
the miraculous conception of, and gracious influences upon the human 
nature of Christ, and in the regeneration, and sanctification of the 
people of God, points Him out as the outwardly operating power of 
the Godhead in this world. 

2. A distinction is also revealed, between these persons, as 
to the mode of action by which they proceed from the Father. 
The Son is said to be generated, the Spirit is simply said to proceed. 
The relation of the Spirit to the Divine Father, has been generally ex- 
pressed by the term "Procession." This is admissible, if it be recog- 
nized as a term merely declarative of such a procession from the Fa- 
ther, as is not exclusive of a procession also of the Son. This expres- 
sion is applied to the Spirit upon the authority of Christ, who calls Him 
in John 15:26, "the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father." 
But our Lord uses a similar word as to himself, though not the same, 
in John 16:28, "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the 
world." The disciples use this last word in John 16:30. The verb 
in these two passages means sometimes "came forth," and sometimes 
"went forth," and, in the latter signification, is precisely equivalent 
to the other verb, which in a different tense appears in John 
15:26. From the "proceeding forth" of the Spirit, therefore, cannot 
be argued a difference in his mode of procedure from that of the 
Son. The terms applied to both are general, and cannot express 



Abstract of Theology. 164 

a difference. Procession, therefore, may be asserted of both the Son, 
•and the Spirit. The mode of the Procession of the Son, is specific- 
ally designated by the generation which is asserted of him. That 
of the Spirit appears likewise to be pointed out by the name given 
to Him. He is the breath of God, which fact, already expressed in 
His name, was taught by our Lord when, on the evening of his 
resurrection, He breathed upon His apostles, saying unto them: 
"Receive ye the Holy Ghost." John 20-22. It is not unlikely, 
however, that the human breath of the Theanthropos was, on that 
occasion, but a symbol of the Divine outbreathing of the Spirit by. 
the Divine Son. This may be well assumed as true, if, indeed, 
the Spirit proceeds from the Son, as well as from the Father. 

This outbreathing of God is even more difficult to interpret, and 
the nature of the relation thus indicated even more incomprehen- 
sible than that of the generation of the Son. In this therefore, as 
in that, we must be content to accept the statement, just as it is 
revealed, being only careful to separate from it all ideas inconsist- 
ent with acts of God. This would exclude everything like a phys- 
ical breathing, or several acts of breathing, at various times, which 
may be successive. The Procession of the Spirit, must therefore be 
regarded as eternal action, completed, only because perfect, and con- 
tinuing, only in the sense of not ended. 

It seems therefore proper, that we should regard the peculiarity 
of the mode of the procedure of both these Persons, to be indi- 
cated by the names given respectively to each. The term "Proces- 
sion" may be especially appropriated to the Spirit only, because in 
His case "Spirit" does not as distinctly point out the mode of pro- 
cedure, as does Sonship, in that of the Son. 

The preposition, with which the verbs are compounded in each 
of these three passages of John, is the same, and shows a proces- 
sion from within God. Wherever the terms "Spirit of God," and 
"Spirit of Christ" appear, the simple genitive is used without a pre- 
position, but this same preposition is found with the genitive of God, 
in 1. Cor. 2:12 and Rev. 11:11. The procedure, is therefore taught 
as being from within God, which shows that the coming from, and the 
going forth from, are both in, and of the Divine nature, and are 
not to be limited to such action as occurs when an ambassador is 
sent from a king, or one man simply proceeds from the presence 
of another. 



165 Abstract of Theology. 

3. Western Christendom, in opposition to Eastern, has main- 
tained that there is also a distinction between the relations of Son, 
and Spirit, as to the source. The Procession of the Spirit is said, by 
the East, to be from the Father only, as is the generation of the Son; 
but by the West, to be from both the Father, and the Son. 

The Eastern Christians have urged, that the Scriptures only declare 
Procession from the Father. It must be acknowledged that this is true, 
inasmuch as there is but one passage of Scripture which speaks of His 
Procession, (John 15:26,) the language of which is "'which proceedeth 
from the Father." But in 1 Cor. 2:12, and Rev. 11:11, the Spirit is said 
to be from God, which may mean from the Father alone, or, as from 
God, so from the Son also. The Spirit is also spoken of as the Spirit 
of Christ, and of the Lord, and of the Son, (Gal. 4:6,) as well as the 
Spirit of the Father, and the Spirit of God. Our Lord also declared, 
that he would send the Spirit. More than this, the action of Christ, 
when he breathed upon the disciples, and said, "Receive ye the Holy 
Ghost," is very significant, and strongly indicatesthe Procession of the 
Spirit from him. This act of Christ, however, may have been no more 
than giving the Spirit to His disciples, without intending to teach any 
Procession from himself. The breathing, which in any event was sym- 
bolical, may have been so only of the divine act of the Father, from 
whom alone the Spirit may truly proceed. In this event, may we not 
also believe, that the relation to the Procession of the Son, differs from 
that of the Father? Would it not be a more exact statement of the 
Scripture teaching to say, that the Son, or that Christ, sends the 
Spirit, and gives the Spirit, which is his, because the right to bestow 
it is his, either essentially, or as given him in his office as Messiah, 
and that the Spirit thus sent proceeds from the Father. In this event 
the Father would be the source of the procedure, and the Son the 
agent in sending it forth. Is not this bestowment on the Messiah, of 
this right to send the Spirit, suggested by Christ's declaration, (John 
16:7,) "if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you," as 
well as by the language (John 7=39,) "the Holy Ghost was not yet 
given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified." These points are pre- 
sented for consideration, while it is admitted, that the assertion, that 
the Spirit proceeds also from the Son, is less objectionable than the 
denial. The Scriptures seem to leave it so doubtful, as to forbid any 
positive statement about it. But the preponderance of evidence is 
in favour of a Procession from both Father, and Son. 



Abstract of Theology. 166 

IV. Subordination between the Persons. 

The absolute equality of each of these persons, as God, has already 
been pointed out p. 153-4. The possibility of inferiority, in other re- 
spects, was then intimated. There are some scriptural statements which 
seem to indicate this. Christ said expressly of himself, k 'my Father 
is greater than I." (John 14:28.) He also not only taught that the 
Father had sent him, but compared with that his own sending of his 
disciples, (John 17:18), and declared that he came, not to do his own 
will but the Father's, (John 6:38); that he came not of himself, (John 
7:28); that he spoke not of himself, but that the Father had given 
him a commandment, what he should say, and speak, (John 12 : 49); that 
his teaching was not his own, (John 7.-16); that the word they heard 
was not his, but the Father's, (John 14:24;) that he had given 
them the words, given him by the Father, (John 17=8); that the 
Father had given him a commandment to do the work he had accom- 
plished, (John 17:4); that he could do nothing of himself, but what he 
saw the Father doing, (John 5 : 19; 8=26); that the Father was with him, 
and had not left him alone, (John 8=29); and that the Father had 
sanctified, (consecrated) him, (John 10=36). Peter also preached to 
Cornelius that u God anointed Christ with the Holy Ghost, and with 
power", and that he performed beneficent, and miraculous acts be- 
cause "God was with him." Acts 10:38. Christ also denied the good- 
ness of any but God. (Matt, 19=17; Luke 18=19), and asserted that no 
man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the 
Father "knew the day, and hour of judgment," (Mark. 13:32); 
["but my Father only," Matt. 24=36]; and, that to sit on his right 
hand, and on his left, was not his to give, but that these positions 
shall be given to those for whom it is prepared of his Father, (Matt. 
20:23; Mark. 10:40). We are told also of his prayers to God, of which 
the remarkable statement is made, that "in the days of his flesh," he 
"offered up prayers and supplications, with strong crying and tears, 
unto him that was able to save him from deadbh, and was heard in 
that he feared." (Heb. 5=7.) Christ also speaks of the power he had 
over all flesh, as given him by the Father, (John 17:2), and Paul in 
(Eph. 1=17:20), assigns his exaltation over all things, and as head of 
the church, described in vv. 19-22, to "the Father of glory," While it 
is said that the Father "hath put all things under his feet," we are told 
that "He is excepted, which did put all things under him,]' (1 Cor. 
15=27); that "then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the 
kingdom to God, even the Father," v. 24; and when all things shall be 



167 Abstract of Theology. 

subdued unto him, then shall the Son also be subject unto him, that put 
all things under him, that God may be all in all," v. 28. The climax of 
these statements is reached, when we find that not only did Paul say 
that "the head of Christ is God," (1 Cor. 11:3); and call the Father 
"the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of Glory," (Eph. 1:17);: 
but our Lord himself, spoke of Him to his disciples as "my Father 
and your Father," and "my God and your God." 

An examination of these, and all similar statements in the Scrip- 
tures, show T s they are in no respect inconsistent with the perfect equal- 
ity of the Persons as to the Divine nature. 

1. Almost all of them, have reference to Christ, as man; or as the 
Son in his relations to his human nature; or as Messiah, securing 
for his people eternal life, and bestowing it upon them, or ruling over 
the universe, and the church. 

2. This explanation may be thought by some insufficient to account 
fully for the subjection of the Son referred to in . 1 Cor. 15:28, or 
for the superior greatness ascribed to the Father in John 14^28. But, 
if so, we are still only taught an inferiority of one person in the Trin- 
ity to another, as a person. Nothing indicates that it is of one of them 
as God, to another as God, or of the Godhead of one, to the Godhead 
of another. It is only of the Son to the Father, and not of God the 
Son, to God the Father. The subsistence of each of the persons in the 
same divine nature may still remain true, as well as that partaking of 
all of it by each, which makes all equally God. 

3. The personal inferiority which is thus made possible, so far as 
it is natural, is due doubtless to the difference in the modes of subsist- 
ence in the divine essence. The Father thus subsists independently 
of the will, or the action of any other person. He is thus simply God; 
not originated, not begotten, not proceeding from. The Son is origin- 
ated, his Filiation is willed, though necessarily, by the Father, and he is 
begotten, and is "very God" of "very God." The Holy Spirit is also 
originated; He is not however begotten, but proceeds from the Father, 
or from the Father, and the Son. His procession is also willed, 
though necessarily, and He, likewise, is "very God" of "very God." 
In this mode of subsistence, therefore, inferiority of the person of the 
Son to the Father, and of the Spirit to the Father, and Son, may be 
said to exist. Without any superiority as God, therefore, the Father 
may be said to be greater than the Son, because of the personal re- 
lations in the Trinity. 

4. But there is also a subordination of office, or rank still more 



Abstract of Theology. 168 

plainly taught. By virtue of this, the Father sends the Son, and the 
Father and Son send the Spirit. This could exist between persons in 
all respects equal to each other, both in nature, and relation. In God, 
however, it is probable that the official subordination is based upon 
that of the personal relations. It corresponds exactly with the rela- 
tions of the Persons, from which has probably resulted their official 
subordination in works without, and especially in the work of Re- 
demption. 

The order of this subordination is plainly apparent from the scrip- 
tural names, and statements about the relations. The Father is un- 
questionably first, the Son second, and the Holy Spirit third. This is 
their rank, as well because of the mode of subsistence, as of its order. 
Hence they are commonly spoken of in this order, as the First, Second 
and Third Persons ol the Trinity. 

'.'The Inhabitation of the Persons." 

"As the essence of the Godhead is common to the several persons, 
they have a common intelligence, will, and power. There are not in 
God three intelligences, three wills, three efficiencies. The Three are 
one God, and therefore, have one mind and will. This intimate union 
was expressed in the Greek church by the word "perichoresis," which 
the Latin words inexistentia, inhabitatio, and intercommunio, were used 
to explain. These terms were intended to express the scriptural facts 
that the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son; that where 
the Father is, there the Son and Spirit are; that what the one does, 
the others do." * * * * * * 

"This fact — of the intimate union, communion, and inhabitation of 
the persons of the Trinity — is the reason why every where in Scrip- 
ture and instinctively by all Christians, God as God is addressed as a 
person, in perfect consistency with the Tripersonality of the Godhead. 
We can, and do pray to each of the Persons separately; and we pray 
to God, as God; for the three persons are one God; one not only in 
substance, but in knowledge, will, and power. To expect that we, 
who cannot understand anything, not even ourselves, should under- 
stand these mysteries of the Godhead, is to the last degree un- 
reasonable. But as in every other sphere, we must believe what 
we cannot understand; so we may believe all that God has re- 
vealed in his word concerning Himself, although we cannot under- 
stand the Almighty unto perfection." Charles Hodge, Sys. Theol. 
vol. 1 pp. 461. 2. 



Abstract of Theology. 170 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY 



LECTURE XVI 



Outward Relations of the Trinity. 

The universe, with all it is, and all it contains, is the result of the 
outward working of the Triune God. It exists, not because of any 
necessity in God's nature to create it, but as the result purely of His 
will. It is the form in which the voluntary activity of God manifests 
itself. 

Activity, in some form, is essential to a personal, intelligent being. 
God must therefore be eternally active. But this necessity for eternal 
activity finds ample scope for its exercise, within the Godhead, in the 
acts involved in the mutual relations of the Persons, and in the pur- 
poses which He forms relative to things without. His outward 
workings, are the results of those purposes alone, and therefore pro- 
ceed purely from His will. The universe consequently bears no 
other relation to God than that of a mere creation of His wisdom, and 
power. It is not eternal, but has those peculiarities of beginning, 
and succession, which belong to time, and dependence, change and im- 
perfection, and which are naturally found in that which is neither 
divine, nor self existent. 

There are three kinds of divine acts. 

1. Immanent, and intrinsic acts. These are within God, and have 
no reference to things without. Such are the Generation of the Son, 
and the Spiration of the Spirit. 

2. Immanent, and extrinsic acts. These, also, are within God, 
but have reference to things without. Such are His Decrees. 



171 Abstract of Theology. 

3. Extrinsic, and transitive acts. These are outside of Himself 
having no existence within Him, but nevertheless proceed efficiently 
from Him, and terminate upon His creatures. Such are Creation, 
Providence, and Redemption. [See Turretine's Institutes, .Book 4, 
Ques. 1, Sec. 4.] 

The first kind of Divine acts is revealed to us in what the Scrip- 
tures teach of the personal relations within the Godhead. The second, 
and especially the third, are made known to us in what we are told of 
the Creation of the world, of God's Providential care over it, and of His 
Redemption of man. As might have been anticipated, we find the ac- 
tivity of God in the second, and third kinds of acts manifested in accord- 
ance with the personal relations revealed in the first. Each of the Per- 
sons performs such divine acts as show that He is God. Each demands 
and accepts equal honour, and worship from man. Each has his own 
especial relation to every work. In it the same subordination, revealed 
in the personal relations, is preserved. Yet, along with this, we find 
that same intercommunion by which what one does is also spoken of 
as done by each of the others. The evidence of this last point needs 
especially, and constantly to be borne in mind, lest we emphasize too 
much the distinct acts of the Persons, and forget that essential union, 
and intercommunion, which, as well as subsistence in the same undi- 
vided essence, or nature, makes the three Persons only One God. 

The method of this action, and the distinct subordination in it, will 
not in all cases appear equally plain. We must, therefore, observe 
with caution what is exactly revealed. Whatever, from other circum- 
stances may appear probable, must be taken only as such. This is 
more especially necessary as this method will be seen somewhat to 
vary, although so far as exhibited, the same order of subordination 
will be perceived. 

I. In Creation. 

Creation, as the first outward manifestation of God, demands the 
first place in this treatment. 

(1.) Whatever distinction may sometimes appear, it is generally 
attributed to the One God. This does not forbid that each Person has 
performed His distinctive part, for it is also referred to the Father, 
and to the Son, and to the Spirit. We have here only the evidence 
of that intercommunion which, even through the distinct action of 
each, still makes what is done by any one of the Persons to be the 



Abstract of Theology. 172 

act of the whole Godhead. The passages which teach this are the 
numerous ones in which "God"' is spoken of as the Creator. These 
must refer either to the Triune' God, or to the Father alone. But 
whatever may be the relation of the Father to this act, the Scriptures, 
by revealing that the Son, and the Spirit were also associated with 
Him, show that Creation was the act of the whole Godhead. 

(2.) The method of this act is revealed in a few passages. These 
teach that Creation came from the Father, as the source, that it was 
accomplished by, or through the Son, as the efficient instrumental 
creating agent, and by, or through the Spirit, as the transforming 
power. The first two of these facts is taught in 1. Cor. 8:6, "yet to 
us there is one, God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto 
Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and 
w r e through him." [Canterbury Revision]. Here the Father is de- 
clared to be the source of all things, and Jesus Christ, the Divine Son. 
the instrument through whom they exist. We have the same truth 
in Heb. 1=2, ''by whom also He made the worlds." 

The Creation is also attributed separately to the Father in Acts 
4:24. He is indeed there called "Lord," but is shown to be the Father 
by the reference to his "holy child Jesus," which marks a distinction 
between two persons, as well as by the quotation of the second psalm. 
In Rev. 4:1 L it is manifestly the Father, to whom the four and twenty 
elders ascribe creation; for he is distinguished from the Lamb that 
redeemed us. (See Chap. 5:8 9.) In Eph. 3:9, God is said to have 
created all things by Jesus Christ, and the context shows that it is 
God the Father who is spoken of. 

That the creation was by, or through the Son, is also separately de- 
clared. John says of the Divine Word, "All things were made by him, 
and without him was not anything made that was made." * * * 
"He was in the world, and the world was made by him." John 1:3.10. 
Paul says, that "by him were all things created, that are in heaven, 
and that are in earth, visible, and invisible, * * * * all things 
were created by him, and for him," (Col. 1:16). See also (Ps. 33:6). 

The transforming power of the Spirit is shown in Gen. 1 : 2. Here 
the Hebrew verb is in the Piel form, and means "to brood over," and 
Gesenius in his lexicon says, is used "tropically of the Spirit of God 
as thus brooding over, and vivifying the chaotic mass of the earth." 
This work of the Spirit seems to have been known to Job, and his 
friends. Job himself says : "By his Spirit he hath garnished the hea- 
vens," (Job 26:13), and Elihu declares, "The Spirit of God hath made 



173 Abstract of Theology. 

me, and the breath (Spirit) of the Almighty hath given me life." 
(Job 33:6). In the 33d Psalm it is also stated, that "By the word of 
Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath 
(Spirit) of his mouth." In Psalm 104:30 God is addressed thus; "thou 
sendest forth thy Spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face 
of the earth." The Creation here referred to is simply transforma- 
tion. 

The above statements show that the Creation of the world is 
ascribed to God as One, yet that all things are of the Father, who is 
thus the source; that they were created by, or through the Son; and 
that the Spirit has been their transforming, and life giving power. 
We find then in this outward action of the Persons the same relation, 
and subordination exhibited personally in the Trinity. The Father 
acts through the Son, (Eph. 3=19; Heb. 1:2), and sends forth the 
Spirit, (Ps. 104:30). 

II. In Providence. 

In the statements made as to the acts of Providence, the subordina- 
tion of the Son, and Spirit, is not distinctly taught. It is not denied, 
however, and there is no reason for supposing that it does not 
exist. Still, in the absence of specific revelation, we dare not positively 
affirm that it does. Throughout the Scriptures, however, all the acts 
of Providence are ascribed to God. Whether by this is meant the 
Father alone, or the Triune God, does not appear. There is no revela- 
tion as to the method by which this is done. Buc each of the persons 
is revealed as performing acts of Providence. Christ declared this of 
the Father, (Matt, 6:25-32, especially verse 32, and 10:29-31.) The 
upholding of the world is asserted of the Son (Heb. 1:3), and it is said 
that "by him all things consist." (Col. 1:17). The Providential care 
of the Spirit is abundantly exercised in connection with the life of 
believers in Christ, who may well be said spiritually to "live, and 
move and have their being" in Him. That this is done in the sphere 
of Redemption makes it no less Providential than if in that of Creation. 
In this latter, however, the Spirit is also spoken of as engaged in Pro- 
vidential acts. (Isaiah 59:10; 63:14). 

III. In Redemption. 

The distinctive action of the three Persons is more plainly exhibited 
in connection with Redemption. This is due, probably, to the fact, 



Abstract of Theology. 174 

that upon this subject, we have more full information than upon the 
acts of Creation, or Providence. God is also brought nearer to us, 
and thus is more clearly revealed. It is in connection with this that 
the revelation has been made of the relations within the Trinity, to- 
gether with the equality of the Persons in the Divine Nature, 
and their subordination within, and in the work without. The whole 
work of Redemption is ascribed to the Triune God; but each of the 
Persons is revealed as sustaining distinct official relation to it. 

1. All of this appears even in the manner in which it has been re- 
vealed. 

(a.) The Scriptures are explicitly declared to be from God. (John 
3:34; 10=35; 1 Cor. 2:9.10; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 1:1. 

(b.) Christ attributes to the Father his own power, and authority 
to speak, and declares Him to be the source of. what was revealed by 
himself. John 3:34; 7:16; 12=49; 15:15. The same truth is taught 
in Rev. 1:1, where the distinction, between the Persons, shows, 
that "the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him," was 
given by the Father. It is from the Father also, as a source, that the 
Spirit derives the truth which He reveals. It is as the Spirit of truth 
that Christ declared that He proceeds from the Father. John 15:26. 
The cause he assigned for his subsequent promise, that the Spirit 
should guide into all truth, was "he shall not speak of himself; but 
whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak/' John 16:13. That 
the truth, thus spoken, should be from the Father, through the Son, 
appears from vv. 14:15. The same is also taught in 1 Cor. 2 : 7— 11, 
in which the "deep things of God" "which the Spirit searcheth," and 
"which God hath revealed unto us by His Spirit, is the hidden wis- 
dom which God ordained before the world unto our glory," being 
"the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him." The 
whole context shows that it is the Father from whom these things are 
learned. 

(c.) But while the Father is thus declared to be the source of the 
revelation of Redemption, it is the Son by whom He has made it 
known. He is, in his Divine relation, especially called the Word of 
God. Him we are commanded by t}ie Father to hear as his "beloved 
Son." (Matt. 17 : 5). In his own person, he so manifested the Father 
that he could say, "He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father." 
(John 14:9). During his incarnation he spoke personally as did the 
prophets of old. (Heb. 1:1.2). He was that prophet whom Moses 
foretold, (Deut. 18:15-19;) and is so proclaimed in Acts 3:20-22. 
He declared himself to be the light of the world. (John 8:12). He 



175 Abstract of Theology. 

foretold the future as to himself, his disciples, Jerusalem, and the 
world. He began the preaching of the great salvation. (Heb. 2:3). 
He gave especial instruction to his apostles, both before his death and 
after his resurrection, not only as to the gospel of the kingdom, but 
as to all things which were to be observed by them, and by those 
whom they should teach. Especially, during this latter period, did 
he instruct them as to the relation of his sufferings, and death to the 
prophecies of the Old Testament. 

(d.) In this work of Revelation, however, the Holy Spirit is made 
known to us as the operating agent. Everywhere it is the Spirit to 
whom the word sent by God is referred. "Holy men of God spake 
as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Pet. 1:21. This is spoken 
of the Old Testament writers in general. It is specifically declared of 
David, (Matt. 2243), (Acts 1:16); and of Isaiah, (Acts 28:25), and of 
the author of the 96th Psalm, in Heb. 3:7. These Old Testament 
writers constantly attribute their instructions to the Spirit of God, as 
for example David in 2 Sam. 23=2. Neherniah asserts it of the pro- 
phets, by whom God had warned his people. Neh. 9=30. Isaiah, in 
Chap. 49=17, proclaims "the Lord God and his Spirit hath sent me." 

The same is preeminently true of the inspired revelations of New 
Testament days. Even the ministry of our Lord was subjected to 
the Spirit. While, as the Divine Son, he works through the Spirit in 
this, as in other Divine acts, yet, as the Godman, he was fostered, in 
his human nature, by its influences, and he was anointed by the Spirit 
for his work. Our Lord declared this in the first act of his ministry, 
(Luke 4:16-21). The immeasurable extent of this influence was 
taught by John the Baptist. (John 3=34). In like manner also were 
the Apostles of Christ prepared for their work. (Eph. 3:5). The 
teaching of their Lord had not sufficed. In recalling, and revealing, 
that teaching, they must needs be made infallible. Other truths were 
also to be made known. Therefore the Spirit was promised, which 
promise was signally fulfilled on the day of Pentecost; nor then only, 
nor upon those there alone, but during all the period of New Testament 
revelation, and upon multitudes who spake, as well as upon those who 
wrote. The effect of this influence is distinctly asserted. At Peute- 
cost, they '"began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them 
utterance." (Acts 2:4). The boldness, with which such men as those 
could speak of Christ, is attributed to their being filled with the Spirit. 
(Acts 4:31). Paul claimed that his preaching was in "demonstration 
of the Spirit.and of power," (1 Cor. 2:4), and, that he spake "not in the 



Abstract of Theology. 176 

words which man's wisdom teacheth; but which the Holy Ghost 
teacheth." 1 Cor. 2:13. 

2. If we turn now to the work of Redemption itself, we shall still 
find those mutual relations sustained. Salvation, or Redemption is 
ascribed everywhere to the Triune God. Examples of this are to be 
found in Luke 1=68-71; 3=6; Acts 28:28; Rom. 1:16; 2 Thess. 2:13; 
Tit. 2:11. 

(1.) But it is specifically assigned, as to its source to the Father. Its 
sphere is within the Creation which is from Him, and under the Pro- 
vidential influences which originate in Him. He is the lawgiver, 
Whose law has been broken, and Who exacts the penalty, as the ad- 
ministrator of that law. The Redemption is the effect of His purpose. 
(1 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 3:11; 2 Tim. 1;9). That purpose flows from His 
benevolent love for mankind. (John 3:16). He has even sent His 
own Son, "that the world through him might be saved." (John 3:17). 
It was His will that the Son came to fulfil. (Heb. 10:7; John 6=38-40; 
Gal. 1:3,4). For this He delivered him up, (Rom. 8:32), according to 
His determinate counsel, (Acts 2:23), thus saving men "according to 
His own purpose, and grace," (2. Tim. 1:9), and thus "hath given to us 
eternal life, and this life is in His Son." (1 John 5:11). It is He, also, 
who "hath chosen us" in Christ "before the foundation of the world," 
and -'hath made us accepted in the Beloved," (Eph. 1.-4.6), and hath 
given us to Christ, (John 17:6-11), "to whom," says Christ himself, 
"no man can come" "except the Father, which hath sent me draw 
him" (John 6:44); "having predestinated us unto the adoption of chil- 
dren by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His 
will." (Eph. 1:5). That men may thus be drawn He promised, 
and gave His Spirit to Christ, (Acts 2:33), and through him unto 
men, that they might be regenerated, (John 3:5), and "quickened," 
while "dead in trespasses, and sins," (Eph. 2:1); that they might 
have faith, (Gal. 5=22,) and the Spirit of Sonship, (Gal. 4:6), and 
may be sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, (Eph. 1:13), which 
witnesses to believers that they are "the children of God, and, if chil- 
dren, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ." (Rom. 
8:16.17.) It is thus, also, that God, having predestinated that they 
shall "be conformed to the image of his Son" sanctifies them, in the 
sense of consecrating them, "through, the truth," (John 17:17), and, 
also, in that of cleansing, and purifying them from sin, (Eph. 5 : 26; 
1 Thess. 4:7), and causes them "to be changed into the same image from 
glory to glory." (2 Cor. 3:18). Throughout all of this work the Fa-, 
ther is also the Person Who is especially addressed in prayer in the 



177 Abstract of Theology. 

name of Jesus, (Eph. 2:14; 3=14), through the moving of the Spirit, 
(Eph. 6=18; Rom. 8:26), and from Whom comes "every good and per- 
fect gift," (James 1:17), as well as the justification, pardon, adoption, 
and salification of believers, and also the Heavenly kingdom He 
has prepared for them. 

These are some particulars, which show how completely the Fa- 
ther is identified with the Redemption of man. They are not ex- 
haustive of what we are taught. Indeed the whole is from Him 
as its source, and not merely in a general way in the gift of His 
Son, and Spirit, but as working by, and through them in each 
particular. In Redemption, as in Creation, and Providence, He is 
ever present, constantly willing, and continually working; though 
not directly by Himself, but through the Son and the Spirit. 

Some portions of this work of the Father will need hereafter more 
full discussion, though not so much as those of the Son, and the 
Spirit,, all of whose acts must be more particularly and minutely 
examined. 

A short statement here is, however, necessary as a summary of 
what will be discussed as to each hereafter, and also that the offi- 
cial subordination may be shown. 

(2.) The action of the Son in Redemption is briefly, yet almost 
fully described in Phil. 2:6-11. We are there taught of that official 
subordination to the Father which he willingly assumed for the 
discharge of this work, which corresponds with the statement else- 
where that he was sent by the Father. We are also told of that 
act of condescension, by which he assumed our nature, and became 
man in his incarnation; of his voluntary humiliation to the death 
of the cross; and of that honour, bestowed upon him, in that nature, 
by which in his exaltation he has been made an object of universal 
worship, "to the glory of God the Father." 

We learn elsewhere, that in the period of his earthly residence 
he became our example as man, as he likewise in it set forth in his 
own person the image of his Father. By his active obedience to 
the law he fulfilled for his people the righteousness due by them. 
By his sufferings, and death, he paid the penalty of their sin. As 
the reward of his work, he received the promised Spirit which he 
sends forth for the salvation of those whom God has given him. All 
power has also been bestowed upon him, that his gospel may be 
preached with success, and he is now* made king in Zion, and in- 



Abstract of Theology. 178 

vested with Mediatorial dominion over all things. Sitting at the right' 
hand of God, he exercises the dominion thus conferred, and at the 
same time makes intercession for his people. Thence shall he come to 
judge the world, and to assign to the righteous, and the wicked their 
everlasting portions. 

The subordination of office, in all the positions thus occupied, is 
plainly revealed. Speaking prophetically, when the hour had come 
for his betrayal and crucifixion, as though already the work were; 
over, Christ himself declared of all that he had done, thus contem- 
plated ak finished, that it was the work the Father gave him to do. 
(John 17=4). So also, had he said, that he came to do the Father's 
will, (John 6:38), and to '-work the works of Him that sent him 
(John 9.4). It was the Father whose law he honoured in the fulfil- 
ment of all its demands, and unto whom, "though He were a Son, he 
yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered." (Heb. 5:8). 
The rewards he received were ali given by the Father; namely, the 
Spirit, (Acts 2=33), his people, (John 17=9). and his exaltation, (Acts 
2:33.36). Even the future judgment of the world is to be his office,, 
because of the ordination of God, (Acts 1042; 17:31; Rom. 2:16), and 
has been committed to him by the Father. (John 5:22.) 

(3.) The works of the Spirit in Redemption are even more numerous 
than those of the Son, and bring Him into the most intimate relations 
to the people of God. 

It was by Him that the human hody of Christ was prepared for the 
indwelling of the Divine Person, (Luke 1:35), and by His gracious in- 
fluences, that the mind and heart of Christ were fitted for his work. 
(Isa 11:1-5; John 3 : 34; Luke 4:14). Likewise he prepares the Church 
which is the spiritual body of Christ "for an habitation of God." 
(Eph. 2:22). It is He, in whom they are so baptized as to be thor- 
oughly overwhelmed by the flood of His divine influences, (Matt. 3:ll) t 
and "washed by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the 
Holy Ghost." (Titus 3:5.) Through Him, they are born again. 
(John 3:5-8). It is He, that "strives with man," (Gen. 6:3), and "con- 
vinces of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment," (John 16:8), and gives 
repentance, (Acts 5:31.32), (compared with Acts 2:33), so warring 
against the lusts of the flesh, and bringing forth spiritual fruit in them, 
(Gal. 5;16-25), that they "walk not after the flesh, but after the 
Spirit," (Rom 8 2-4). He also produces faith, (Eph. 3:17), and "all 



179 Abstract of Theology. 

joy, and peace in believing that' 5 they -'may abound in hope,'' (Rom. 
15:13), and knowledge of "the things which God hath prepared for 
them that love Him." 1 Cor. 2:9.10). "Through Him we have ac-* 
cess unto the Father," (Eph. 2:18), praying always with all prayer, 
and supplication in the Spirit," (Eph. 6=18), since we '-have received 
the Spirit of adoption, whereby, we cry, Abba, Father," and "the Spirit 
itself beareth witness with our spirits, that we are the children of 
God." (Rom. 8:15.16). Thus does He become to us the author of jus- 
tification, (by the faith produced), and sanctification, (both cleansing 
and consecration), (1 Cor. 6:11), and adoption. (Gal. 4:6). Likewise 
He reveals the glory of Christ to the believer, and changes him into 
the same image. (2 Cor. 3:18). This,, as the context shows, is done 
through the word of God, which is the sword of the Spirit, (Eph. 6:17). 
It is also effected through the ordinances of the gospel, so far as they 
are symbolical of his cleansing, and nourishing work, as well as of the 
death, and resurrection of Christ. (Rom. 6=3.4; Eph. 6:26; Titus 3:5.6; 
1 Cor. 11:26; John 6:48-63.) 

■ In all of these, and His other works, the Spirit comes into the most 
intimate fellowship with the people of God. As the Father attains 
nearness by the endearing relation of the Fatherhood to sons who cry 
unto Him with the spirit of adoption, and as the Son becomes an ob- 
ject of supreme affection because of his loving sacrifice, and sufferings, 
so the Spirit, seeks the intimacy of an indweller in believers, that He 
may develop their graces, and become to them a present Witness, 
and Comforter in the bodily absence of their incarnate Lord. (1 Cor. 
3=16 17). 

The subordination of the Spirit in this work, is revealed, in general, 
in the statements that He is sent by the Father, and the Son. (John 
14:16.17; 15:26). But it is taught, also, more particularly. It is 
Christ that is to. baptize in the Spirit, (Matt. 3:11), and thus through 
.Him to produce the results of his work. It is the Father unto whom 
men come through the Spirit in prayer. (Eph. 6:18). It is the Fa- 
ther who justifies, and adopts, though through the influences of the 
Spirit. It is the image of Christ, not of Himself, into which He trans-: 
forms believers. The ordinances also are of Christ's appointment, and 
are especially fitted to set forth his work, and only that of the Spirit 
in a secondary way. Even the indwelling is that believers may be 
"builded together for an habitation of God." . .. 



Abstract of Theology. 180 

We have thus seen, that in the various works of the Trinity with- 
out, the same subordination of office appears as is found in the mode 
of subsistence within. This subordination, in both respects, should be 
recognized because taught in God's word. Atthe same time it must 
never be forgotten, that the same word as distinctly declares the 
perfect equality of the Three Persons in the Divine Nature, which 
allows no inferiority of any one of them as God. 



Abstract of Theology. 182 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE XVII. 



CREATION. 

It is natural that the origin of the universe should have been one 
of the most prominent subjects of inquiry among men. Various theo- 
ries have been presented, not only by those who have been guided by 
Reason only, but even by others to whom Revelation has been known, 
but not accepted as authoritative. All theories, however, may be 
generally reduced to four. 

1. That which asserts that matter is the one eternal, self existent 
substance from which all else proceeds. 

2. That which regards it as an emanation from God. 

3. That which maintains that matter is itself eternal, but has been 
acted upon by God, who has used its substance in the construction 
of all things, thus giving to them form, and life. 

4. That which accords with the Scripture teaching, that the uni- 
verse has been made absolutely out of nothing, by the active exercise 
of the will, and power of God. 

It is the duty of Theology to examine each of these theories, and to 
set forth the reasons for believing that matter is neither self existent, 
and independently eternal, nor an emanation from God, nor mere ma- 
terial used by Him; but has been created out of nothing. 

1. Matter is not the one eternal, self existent substance from which 
all else proceed. 

(1.) If it is; then mind is the product of matter, and not mat- 
ter that of mind. 

The universe presents to us both mind, and matter. Each of 
these must exist independently of each other, or the one must have 



183 Abstract of Theology. 

been the production of the other. Which then has been the produc- 
ing cause ? Have the mental powers which are exhibited by man 
been the development of forces inherent in matter, which through 
various processes have finally attained to self consciousness, and 
thought, and purpose, such as we find in man ? or is there some infi- 
nite mind, which has originated all things, both mind, and matter ? 

The greater reasonableness of the supposition that mind has origin- 
ated matter is ably set forth by Dr. Hovey in his Manual of Theology, 
pp. 28-39. He contends that it is more reasonable to suppose, (1.) 
that there is one original, and self-existent Force, or Being than more 
than one; (2 ) that Matter is a product of Mind rather than Mind of 
Matter; (3.) that the order of the universe is due to a Supreme Mind 
rather than to forces co-operating together without purpose ; (4.) 
that the vegetable world is a product of Mind organizing Matter, 
rather than of Matter organizing itself; (5.) that the animal world is 
a product of Mind, imparting a higher organizing principle to vege- 
table elements, rather than of vegetable forces acting alone; (6.) 
that man as a rational being, is a product of Mind, giving a higher 
principle of life to animal being, rather than of mere vital forces act- 
ing without reason ; (7.) that man as a moral being, is a product of 
the Supreme Mind, itself moral, rather than of vital forces that have 
no moral insight; (8.) that man, as a religious being, is a product of the 
Supreme Mind rather than of mere vital forces. 

The above are simply condensed statements of the mere propositions 
laid down by Dr. Hovey. His full argument shows conclusively how 
utterly unreasonable is the idea that Mind should have proceeded 
from Matter, and not produced it. But, if so, it is equally unreason- 
able that matter should be the one originating cause of the universe. 

(2.) The same fact appears from the existence of the laws which 
control matter. Matter has fixed limitations within which alone it 
can act. Its movements, its changes of form, its developments, and 
indeed all things connected with it, are governed by fixed, and, so far 
as we can see, unchangeable laws. These laws can be examined, and 
known, and made the basis of the action of men. Now these laws can 
be accounted for only in one of three ways. Either they belong to 
matter as a necessity of its nature, or it must have the power to give 
to itself laws, or they have been imposed upon it by a superior intelli- 
gence. But if the first be true, then that necessity of nature would 
not only make these laws unchangeable, for whatever exists of neces- 
sity exists without possibility of change, but would likewise make it 
impossible for men to conceive of change in them in any respect. But, 



Abstract of Theology. 184 

the fact, that there is such great diversity among the scientific theories 
which attempt to develop the laws controlling nature in many of its 
aspects, and that there seems no absurdity, or natural impossibility 
that the law should accord with any one of these theories, or be dif- 
ferent from it, evinces that there is no absurdity in supposing that 
the material universe might have been placed under very different 
laws from those which exist. 

But the second of these suppositions cannot be true, because Matter 
■must then, in some aspect, have had intelligence to understand, and 
establish law before the existence of Mind in any form ; for science 
teaches that created mind, which, upon the supposition, is the only 
kind of existent mind, comes forth in connection with the higher 
organisms of existence, and long after' apparent operation of the laws 
which regulate matter. 

It is certain, therefore, that the laws of matter have been imposed 
by a Superior Intelligence, and, consequently, that Matter cannot be 
the Eternal, Self Existent substance, from which all else proceeds. 

(3.) The incapacity of Matter to create anything shows that it is 
not self-existent, and eternal. All that is claimed for matter is the 
power to develop one form into another. It is even denied that there 
has been any increase in its original materials since it first began to 
be. But it is evident, that whatever cannot be the cause of existence 
to others, cannot be the cause of its own existence, or be self-existent. 
The latter is a far higher power than the former. 

» (4.) That matter is not eternally self-existent is also manifest from 
the fact that it exists in time. The laws of time require succession of 
moments, and limits of duration. Matter could not be eternal in 
any other way than through the existence of an infinite series of 
finite periods, which is absurd. 

2. Matter is not an emanation from God. 

That which goes forth from God must either be from His nature, or 
from His mere will, and power. But the latter would be a mere 
creation out of nothing since it would not be something produced out 
-of Himself. An emanation from God must, therefore, proceed from 
•His nature. But it cannot be of this character. 

-• (a.) Because, if from His nature, .it must possess the attributes of 
that nature, and must exist in the same mode of existence with it. 
But' matter has none of the attributes which belong to God. Nor is 
the mode of its existence like His. It has neither self-existence, nor 
eternity of existence, nor, infinity of space, for it is composed of finite 



185 Abstract of Theology. 

parts, nor of time, because it exists in successive moments which are 
finite, and measureable. It has not intelligence, nor purposing power, 
nor can it have wisdom, or goodness, nor can it exercise justice, nor 
experience love. 

(b.) An emanation from the nature of God would be opposed to 
the doctrine of the Unity of God. That which thus proceeds would 
be as truly God as that from which it comes forth. We should, there- 
fore, have two Gods. Indeed, as matter itself is capable of indefinite 
division, there would be an indefinite number of Gods. The doctrine 
of the Trinity gives no support to such an emanation as Matter would 
necessarily be, because it does not teach an emanation from the nature 
of God, for the Divine Nature remains One only, and is not divided 
among the Three Persons, but is the common substance in which they 
subsist. In order that Matter should subsist in God in like manner, 
it must itself have a conscious personal existence, and have all the 
attributes of God, and have the same mode of existence. 

3. Neither is matter a substance upon which God has simply acted 
in the production of the Universe. 

(a.) The evidence that it is not eternal shows that it was not thus 
present of itself with God furnishing material for His workmanship. 
If it existed at any time in an unorganized condition, it must either 
have been first created in that condition, or permitted to lapse into it 
from its original form. 

(b.) The power, and right thus to act upon matter must either have 
been conferred upon God, as it is on us, or it must have arisen from 
His having created it. But as there was no one to confer this power 
upon God, the Universe must have been created by Him. 

4. The theory, then, of a creation out of nothing, by the mere will, 
and power of God, is the only reasonable supposition upon which to 
account for the existence of the Universe. It is not an objection to 
this reasonableness, that it was first made known by Revelation. 
Being thus revealed, it appears to reason, not only to be fully accord- 
ant with all the facts and phenomena of matter, but to be the only 
theory which can account for them. That this theory has been sug- 
gested by the language of God's word makes it no less reasonable than 
if suggested by some mere man. It is at once seen not to be an im- 
possibility. It is not a creation out of nothing in the sense that it 
has no cause, nor that it has been produced without the existence 
of forces adequate to the end. The cause, and the forces are in 
God; in His will, and wisdom, and power, and goodness. It cannot 



Abstract of Theology. 186 

be said to come from nothing, for it comes from God. The mind 
readily rests in such a theory. It fully answers all the demands of 
the problem to be solved. It is accompanied with none of the diffi- 
culties which press against the theories based upon the Eternity of 
Matter. The manner in which God works is indeed unknown to us; 
but that He may so work is highly accordant with reason. 

The creation of the world out of nothing is the plain teaching* of 
Scripture. It is true, that the phrase to create from nothing is not 
found, except in one of the apocryphal books of the Old Testament. 
(2 Maccabees 7:28), But the fact itself is taught expressly in Heb. 
11:3. "Through faith we understand, that the worlds were framed 
by the word of God; so that things which are seen were not made of 
things which do appear." The account of the general creation in 
Genesis conveys the same idea, and a like impression is produced by 
the Scriptures generally. It has been argued from the verbs, used to 
declare the creation, both in Genesis and elsewhere; but the argument 
is doubtful as these words are also applied to acts of creation out of 
preexistent matter. 

This creation out of nothing seems essential to the power of God 
over matter. If He did not create it, it exists independently of Him; 
but if it is His creation, then He has absolute control, not only over 
the forms into which He has shaped it, and over the laws He has given 
it, but over matter itself in every respect. 

A distinction is made between immediate, or primary creation, or 
that act by which God acts directly without the use of preexistent 
materials, and mediate, or secondary creations, or those acts by which 
out of preexistent materials, He produces His creatures. The uni- 
verse of matter was an immediate creation. The body of Adam 
was a mediate one, and so also are those of all His posterity. 

Several objections have been presented against the full inspiration 
of the account of the Creation given in the first chapters of Genesis. 

(1.) It is claimed that the general account which concludes with 
the third verse of the second chapter cannot be an inspired writing, 
because it was evidently taken from some other source, and incorpor- 
ated in this book. 

In reply it may be'said. 

(a.) That this has not been, and cannot be established. 

(b.) That if it were, it would not affect its inspiration. 



187 Abstract of Theology. 

It is much more probable that the genealogies of Christ, given by 
Matthew, and Luke, were from the records of the family of David. 
The inspiration of Matthew, and Luke, and Moses does not depend 
upon these having been made as direct revelations to them; but upon 
the fact that they were moved by the Holy Ghost to insert them in the 
books they were writing ; such moving of the Spirit being, however, 
an evidence of the truthfulness of the records. If, therefore, it could 
be *proved that this account existed long before the days of Moses, this 
proof would, in no respect, militate against its inspiration. 

(2.) Another objection is that Genesis represents the Creation as 
occurring in six literal days of twenty -four hours each, and that geo- 
logical science has proved that the world was created in periods of 
time much longer. 

But the account does not necessarily teach that this work was done 
in six such days. 

(a.) Because the word "day" is sometimes an indefinite term, the 
true meaning of which must be ascertained by the context. It is ap- 
plied to each of these periods in the first chapter, and also to all of 
them unitedly in Gen. 2:4. The Scriptures frequently use it very 
indefinitely, as the "day of trouble," "of wrath," "of temptation," "of 
vengeance, etc." It even embraces the whole period of a captivity, as 
the day of Jerusalem, Ps. 137:7; of Egypt, Ezek. 30:9. These, and 
many other applications, show that frequently it means merely a 
period, and the length of that period must be ascertained otherwise. 

(b.) Because the Hebrew words translated "evening", and "morn- 
ing", while almost always used for those portions of the day, do not 
necessarily indicate a day of twenty-four hours duration, but may 
denote only the changes which occur, periodically, in any cyclical 
period. The root ideas of these words are "the mingling" (evening) 
and "the bursting forth" (morning). They are thus beautifully de- 
scriptive of a time of intermingling of the elements, followed by a 
period of darkness, and that by the bursting forth of the appearance 
of a new creation, the whole forming one cyclical period. The length 
of the period is not necessarily indicated by them. The use, also, of 
these words before the appearance of the Sun, and Moon, on the fourth 
day, very decidedly confirms the idea that the periods need not be 
those of an ordinary day. 

(c.) While it is admitted that the resting of God upon the seventh 
day, in connection with the language of the commandment respecting 
the observance of the Sabbath, favours the idea of days of twenty four 
hours; even this does not make necessary such days. We know not what 






Abstract of Theology. 188 

is exactly meant by God's resting on the seventh day. There is cer- 
tainly something figurative, or anthropomorphic about it. The "rest" 
of this first chapter may represent the ceasing from creative work in 
this world, and the seventh day of rest, to which man is called, may 
be commemorative, and typical of it ; the latter being brief, and in- 
ferior, in comparison with it, as man is but an atom in the creation of 
the Great God of this greater Sabbath. 

From these facts it is manifest that we are not compelled to main- 
tain that the creation was limited to six ordinary days. This is all that 
is necessary. If science can show the impossibility of such a, six day 
creation, we can reply that the Scriptures do not necessarily teach it. 
And the fact of its possible concurrence with scientific discoveries, 
heretofore so unlooked for, becomes strong evidence of the inspiration 
of the account. 

3. Another objection is, that according to any Scripture chronol- 
ogy which we have, man has been on the earth only six, or eight 
thousand years, and yet that fossil remains of men have been found 
who must have existed fifty thousand years ago, or more. 

(a) But satisfactory proof of this has not yet been afforded. 
Scientific men themselves are not agreed about it. 

(b.) But if true, the Scriptures are not necessarily wrong, nor un- 
inspired. The chronology of the different forms in which the Old 
Testament has come down to us is known to vary. This is attribut- 
able to mistakes in copying, which can more easily occur in the repre- 
sentations of numbers, than of any other ideas. It may be that Adam 
was created more than eight thousand years ago, and that the original 
chronology of the Scriptures so taught. It may be, that, in connection 
with that greater antiquity, if all were known about it, would appear 
explanations of the great age to which many of the Patriarchs are said 
to have arrived. Nor is it impossible, that other races of men existed 
before Adam, either such as he himself was, with both spiritual, and 
animal life, or they with animal life only, and he with the specially 
added endowment of a spiritual nature. 

While these various objections thus seem not to render impossible 
the absolute verity of this Genesis account of Creation, there are other 
facts which ought to be remembered which support the narrative. 

(1.) That it is natural that the Scripture should use phenomenal 
language only as to scientific matters. We do this every time we 
speak of the sun rising, and setting, and no one misunderstands, or is 
deceived. This is the only method in which a book for all ages could 



189 Abstract of Theology. 

*. 

refer to scientific matters. Had the Bible used language exactly 

suited to the science of to-day, embracing all its best established 
theories, in less than fifty years, it would have to be admitted that it 
could not be from God, because of its lack of truth. Had it been 
written in the language of true science originally, age after age would 
have rejected it as false. It could only treat science phenomenally. 

(2.) But, while thus written, it often gives underlying evidence that 
God its author knew truths of science, that could not have been known 
to the science of that day. This is peculiarly shown in this account 
of Creation. Light here appears before the Sun, and the Moon. The 
order of the creations accord generally with that taught by Geology 
from an examination of the stratifications of the rocks. Man is made 
after all other creations, and his body is made of the dust of the earth. 
Even the universe was not made as it now appears, for, while the 
first verse of the first chapter states the creation of both heavens and 
earth, the second teaches that, before the formative process began, 
the earth was in a chaotic condition. The truth, is, that, so generally, 
and yet so accurately, are the statements made, that, even if it could 
be proved that the World is the production of original concurrent 
atoms, or of a universal Fire Mist, or the development of molecules, 
there is nothing in this Genesis account to commit it to the contrary. 
Even the creation of animal life, including that of man is from the 
earth, which is directed to bring forth. The soul of man is the 
only living thing which is declared to have been a direct creation 
of God. 

Several theories have been presented for the full reconciliation 
of Genesis, and Geology. It is not necessary to state them here. 
It is enough that there are possible means of such reconciliation, 
and that any one, or more of them, may be true. The veracity of 
the Scriptures is otherwise abundantly proved. Here it is charged 
that they speak falsely. Were a man of well known probity, and 
honour, thus assailed, and facts however strong, or cumulative, pre- 
sented against him, it would suffice to support his denial by show- 
ing that there are possible circumstances which may explain all 
seeming falsehood. So with the Scriptures. They are charged 
with error. It is enough to show one possible explanation. But, 
in this case, we can show several. This would suffice. But we 
are justified in challenging those who deny inspiration to account 
for the many coincidences with the scientific teaching, found in 
this narrative. 



Abstract of Theology. 190 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE XVIII. 



Creation of Angels. 

In the last lecture reference was made only incidentally to the 
creation of intelligent, moral, and spiritual beings. There are several 
matters connected with such creations which deserve special consider- 
ation. The creation of angels will be first treated because of their 
probable earlier existence, and superior nature, and position. 

I. Some have denied the utility of this inquiry because men owe 
angels no duty of homage, or worship, and because their usual in- 
visibility forbids that their presence for good, or evil, should be known. 
But it is surely important to know something of beings who 
have been so intimately associated with the past history of man, both 
for weal, and woe. [See Article of Moses Stuart in Bib. Sacra, Vol. 
O, p. 88.] 

II. It is said by some that reason decides against the existence of 
such beings, or at least against their appearance to man. But on the 
contrary nothing can be more rational than the belief that the God , 
whose animal creatures in this world are of so many kinds, and grada- 
tions, should not stop with the first creation of moral, and intellectual 
beings, but should extend upward his creative skill, and power, 
throughout numerous classes of similar, or superior nature to man. 
Nor is there anything unreasonable in the supposition that, while or- 
dinarily these may be confined to the exercise of influences under the 
laws of mind, and spirit, at times, at God's will, they should appear 
in bodily forms recognizable by the senses. [Stuart in Bib. Sacra, 
Vol. 0, pp. 90-93.] 



19.1 Abstract of Theology. 

III. But the Scriptures plainly teach that there are angels, and 
that they visit the inhabitants of this world. 

Its general tenor teaches it. Even superficial readers of the Word 
of God must be convinced that it reveals the existence, and presence 
with man, of personal beings of another sphere, through whom God 
communicates to him, and aids, and protects him; as well as of other 
angels whose influence is for evil, and is destructive of happiness. 

There are some, however, who declare that all such teachings are 
purely figurative, and that the good angels of the Word are "no more 
than the kindness, and mercy of God, and the evil angels His afflict- 
ive punishing, or chastising acts." 

Such interpretations deserve the charge of "handling the Word of 
God deceitfully." But even if they were admitted to be correct, as to 
much, or most of the language used as to angels, there are some in- 
stances of their appearance which cannot thus be explained away. 
The interview between the angel and Hagar. (Gen. 16;7-14), is one 
of these, That with the wife of Manoah is another. (Judges 13:2-21). 
Signal instances also are those with Zacharias, (Luke 1:5-20), and 
with Mary, (Luke 1=26-38,) and with Mary Magdalene, and the 
other women, (Matt. 28:1-7). Those statements are especially conclu- 
sive which are made in Mark 12:25, and Luke 20:36, in which it is 
declared as to the saints, that, "when they shall rise from the dead, 
they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels 
which are in heaven." There is also no meaning in Hebrews 1:4. if 
there are no angels. [See Kitto's Ency. Art. Angels.] 

IV. Various names are given to angels as expressive either of 
their nature, or offices. 

1. The chief of these is descriptive of their office. Angel means 
a messenger. It is a word not confined to them, nor to any other 
kind of messengers of God. (1.) It is used of ordinary messengers 
among men, 1 Sam. 11:3; Job 1:14; Luke 9:52; (2) of prophets, 
Mai. 3:1 ; (3.) of priests, Mai. 2:7 ; (4.) of ministers of the gospel, 
Rev. 1:20; (5.) of impersonal agents, as of pestilence, 2 Sam. 24:16.17. 
Plagues, likewise, are denominated "evil angels," Ps. 78:49. Paul 
also calls his "thorn in the flesh" "an angel of Satan,'' 2 Cor. 12:7. 
(6.) It is also applied to the Second Person of the Trinity, as "the 
angel of His presence," Isa. 63:9, and "the angel of the covenant," 
Mai. 3:1. (7.) The name, however, is generally applied to the angels 
of God as spiritual beings. See Kitto's Ency. Art, Angels. 



Abstract of Theology. 192 

a 2. The name Spirit is also given to them, Ps. 104:4; Mark 1:27; 
Heb. 1:7. This name is descriptive of their nature. 

3. They are called "Sons of God," Job 1:6 ; 2:1 ; 38:7. 

4. They are called "Gods," Ps. 8=5. The Hebrew for angels here 
is Gods. Compare also Ps. 97:7, with Heb. 1=6. 

5. They are called "servants of God," Job 4:18 ; Ps. 103:21. 

6. They are called "Holy ones." Job 4=18 ;15:15 ; Dan. 4:13.17. 

7. They are called "Watchers" and "Watchmen." Dan. 4:13.17, 

8. They are called "Thrones, Dominions, Principalities, Powers, 
and Mights." Eph. 1:21 ; Col. 1:16. 

9. There are other names which are probably applied to them, as 
"Cherubim," "Seraphim," and "Hosts," as when God is called the 
"Lord of Hosts." See Dr. J. Pye Smith, First Lines, p. 328. Also 
Kitto's Ency. Art. Angels. 

V. We know very little of the nature of angels. They are spoken 
of, but not described in the Scriptures. Yet some facts plainly 
appear. # » 

1. They are spiritual beings. This is indicated by the only name 
derived from their nature. 

Dr. J. Pye Smith attributes to them corporeal powers, analogous to the 
substance of light, or of the electric fluid, and claims that thus light 
is cast upon such Scripture passages as speak of their relations to 
space, and of their locomotion, as Luke 2=9 ; Matt. 28:2; Acts 1:10; 
12:7. [First Lines, p, 329.] 

Moses Stuart, on the contrary, maintains that "angels are incor- 
ruptible, immaterial, immortal, and, in their proper nature, impalpable 
to the senses." [Bib. Sac. vol. 0, p. 99.] 

This seems to be the most correct, and Scriptural view; as it is also 
the one most generally held. All the difficulties it encounters may 
be explained by the fact that we have to speak of angels as we do of 
God in the language of man, which cannot always convey exact, and 
adequate ideas of them. [See Stuart in Bib. Sacra, vol. 0, pp. 94-98.] 

The declarations that "a spirit hath not flesh and bones," Luke 
24:39, that "God is a spirit," John 4 : 24, that the children of the 
resurrection will "neither marry nor be given in marriage," and that 
"they cannot die any more because they are made like to the angels." 
Luke 20=35.36; Matt. 22:30, indicate that the nature of angels is 
truly spiritual. [Moses Stuart, Bib. Sac. vol. 0, p. 100.] The abode 
of the angels in heaven, and the offices they perform confirm this idea. 



193 Abstract of Theology. 

After all, however, it is unimportant to decide whether they are 
simply spirits, or have some spiritual body, such as will belong to the 
saints after the resurrection. Either view maintains all that is essen- 
tial to the spirituality of their nature. 

2. They are intelligent beings. This seems to follow necessarily 
from their being spirits. But it is plainly taught in the Scriptures. 
See Eph. 3=10; 1 Pet. 1 : 12; 2 Pet. 2:11. These passages imply that 
they are superior to men in this respect. 

3. They possess moral natures. They are not only made capable 
of knowing God's excellence, and of worshipping Him; but are also 
spoken of as being under moral obligation, so that they are rewarded 
for obedience, and punished for disobedience. It may also be argued 
from the fact, that their ministry in this life seems confined to moral 
and spiritual things. Heb. 1=14. 

There are certain facts which result from the nature of angels, 

1. As spiritual, and intelligent beings, they must possess freedom 
of will. 

2. They are not subject to the restrictions, and conditions of the 
world of sense. They do not occupy space, because they have no 
bodily form. Nevertheless, they are not omnipresent as is God, but 
they have location. Neither do they attain knowledge through the 
senses, nor are they affected by bodily appetites, or desires, 

3. While in their original innocent condition they must be happy. 
It is believed from the general tenor of Scripture, that the angels 
that kept their first estate have been confirmed in their happiness. 
Such confirmation, however, results from the promises of God as a 
reward for their obedience, and is bestowed by Him not as an act of 
justice, but in accordance with His veracity. No obedience can bring 
God under obligation to confirm. 

4. They must also be possessed of great power. 

Christ intimates that their power is greater than that of man, (Matt. 
26 : 53, and this fact is plainly taught in 2. Pet. 2:11. See also 2 Thess. 
1:7, and Eph. 1:21. This power is seen also in their performance of 
supernatural works, as in the rolling away of the stone at the sepul- 
chre of Christ, and in the opening of the prison door of Peter. 
Perhaps it was most wonderfully exhibited in the strengthening of the 
Saviour in Gethsemane by the angel which appeared. Luke 22:43. 

Dr. A. D. C. Twesten makes the following five valuable suggestions 
as to the exercise by angels of power over man. 



Abstract of Theology. 194 

1. "Whatever may be the efficiency attributed to the angels, their 
relation to us can only be that of one finite to another finite cause; 
and is never to be imagined as similar to the relation which God, or 
Christ, or the Holy Ghost sustains to us." 

2. "The efficiency of the angels is, therefore, always to be repre- 
sented in accordance with the laws of reciprocal action established 
between finite beings; hence it never excludes our counter-action, or 
reaction, and can neither annul the power of nature, nor the freedom 
of the will." 

3. "All action of angels upon the world of sense can take place 
only under the following conditions; that they enter into, or become 
one of the series of causes there at work; and that they themselves 
act by means of these causes, or in the same mode with them." 

4. "This entrance into the series of causes at work in the world of 
sense, may be looked upon as an original, a primitive, perhaps also a 
transient influence; but it can leave behind it effects which will pro- 
pagate the primitive influence, and which may, therefore, be con- 
sidered as parts of the angelic efficiency. Thus, for example, the 
temptation of the first man by Satan continues to operate in the law 
of sin, and death, which was thus introduced into the world." 

5. "The original entrance of angels into the world of sense, seems not 
to depend upon their own good pleasure alone ; but, if we may'judge 
from its infrequency, to be limited to narrow bounds. In this respect, 
and in its very nature, it is analogous to miracles, and hence like 
these, appears to be specially attached to certain periods of divine 
revelation, or of the development of God's kingdom in this world." 
[See the translation in the Bib. Sacra, Vol. 1, pp. 774-775.] 

VI. Our final inquiry will be into the offices discharged by these 
beings. 

1. Their chief duty is to attend upon God, and perform His com- 
mands. This may be said indeed to include all that they do. They 
are God's messengers. 

2. They are brought into contact with men by these commands. 
They are represented as present at the Creation, at the giving of the 
Law, at the birth of Christ, after the temptation in the wilderness, 
during the agony in Gethsemane, and at Christ's resurrection, and 
ascension. They are deeply interested in the economy of Redemp- 
tion, and are constantly seeking to penetrate into its mysteries, and 



195 Abstract of Theology. 

know its depths. They feel a deep interest in man, and become the 
medium of messages to him. They rejoice over his repentance, and 
are made the means of comfort, protection and guidance. "They are 
ministering spirits, sent forth to minister to them that are heirs of 
salvation." They are also made the messengers of God's vengeance 
to execute his wrath upon the sinful. Thus was it with the angels 
who visited Lot, and those who smote the first born of the land of 
Egypt. This punitive office belongs' to good, as well as bad angels, 
and it is more signally seen in the events predicted of the Judgment 
day. 

3. From the intimate connection, thus existing between angels, and 
men, other offices have been assigned to them. Guided by the fables 
of the Rabbins, and led off, by the peculiar views of Oriental philos- 
ophy, some have ' conceived that on each person in this life an angel 
attends to guard, and protect him from evil. 

This theory of a guardian angel has been held in various forms. 
Some have confined his presence to the good; some have extended it 
also to the wicked; some to the elect before, or after conversion; some 
to all men alike; some have supposed two angels instead of one; the 
one good, the other bad. In like manner has the theory been held of 
guardian angels over nations; some confining that also to good nations, 
others extending it to all. That such views existed among the Jews, 
and that they were also prevalent among the earlier Christians may 
be admitted; but the scriptural authority for them is wanting. 

The passages supposed to favour them may be readily explained 
otherwise. This idea of guardian angels is earnestly advocated by 
Prof. Stuart, in Vol. 0, of the Bibliotheca Sacra. He claims that they 
attend the good only. 

The strongest points that he makes are based upon the attendance of 
angels upon the footsteps of Christ. That attendance is readily grant- 
ed; but they were attendants, not guardians. This is seen from the 
fact, that, although they strengthened Him while here on earth, as 
His agony seemed to require, that attendance is not confined to Christ 
in this life, but is spoken of as to be continued, even after the time of 
His ascension. Besides this, that which is fatal to the theory is, that 
it was not one special angel that was present, but several at one 
time, and probably different ones at different times. The sacred 
Scriptures never speak of any one of these as his angel, or as the 
angel, but only refer to an angel, or to angels. This, however, is 
but the general sense in which God is said to send his angels, that 



Abstract of Theology. 196 

they might be ministering spirits which fact is not questioned, but 
is very different from the supposition of the one angel, who from 
the beginning to the end of life, is ever present to watch over every 
man. 

The Scripture references, by which Prof. Stuart would prove this of 
individual men, do not at all sustain him.* They are Gen. 31:1.2; 
2 Kings 6;1-17; Ps. 34:7; Zech. 3:4-10; Matt. 18:10; Acts 12:7-15. 

There are indeed but two passages which at all make likely the 
idea of guardian angels to individuals. One of these is Acts 12 : 7-15, 
in which, we are told that when Peter knocked at the door of the 
house, in which were the disciples, on his deliverance from prison, 
they were led to say "it is his angel." 

Of this passage it may be said that it is doubtful whether refer- 
ence was not made to the spirit of Peter ; but even, if not, the 
language is simply that of the disciples, expressing a sentiment that 
commonly prevailed, and one for which inspiration is not all re- 
sponsible, except as correctly reporting the language used. It is 
evidently not language which was of faith. 

The other passage is Matt. 18:10. This is well paraphrased by 
Knapp. "As we are careful not to offend the favourites ol those who 
stand high in the favour of earthly kings, we should be still more 
careful not to offend the favourites of Divine Providence." 'The 
humbly pious, are those entrusted to the special care of those who 
stand high in the favour of God, (who behold his face)." Knapp's 
Theology, p. 212. 

The Scriptures that seem to sustain the notion of guardian angels 
over nations are Dan. 10=13-70; Dan. 12*1. But here "Oambysesand 
Alexander seem to be meant, and Michael is probably the Messiah." 
J. Pye Smith, First Lines, p. 331. 

The following passages seem to be opposed to the idea of one angel 
to one man, or nation. Gen. 28:12; 32:12; 2 Kings 6:16.17; Luke 
16:22. 

It is further objected, 

1. That this notion seems unworthy of the rank and office of such 
beings. But it is replied that God watches over us. This, however, 
is very different from the constant daily attendance upon us of one 
being of such superior intelligence. 

2. It is rendered needless by the watchful care of God. 

3. It has led, and is apt to lead to worship of angels. 



197 Abstract of Theology. 

4. It is apt to derogate from the mediatorial glory of the Lord 
Jesus Christ. Dr. J. Pye Smith, p. 331. 

VII. The number of the angels is unknown, but that it is very 
great is shown by the following passages. Dan. 7:10; Matt. 26:53; 
Heb. 12:22. 

VIII. As to their dwelling place nothing definite can be said. 
They dwell with God. But is this in one place, or in many? There 
own spiritual nature, and that of God makes it probable that it is in 
many places. 



Abstract of Theology, 198 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE XIX. 



FALLEN ANGELS. 

Superior spiritual beings have heretofore been referred to almost 
as though there were none except those who yet retain their position 
as sons of God. Only a hint or two has been given which would lead 
to the knowledge of the existence of others. But the important rela- 
tion's which the angels bear to us, and the great power over us which 
they excercise, render important the consideration whether evil an- 
gels actually exist, and in what position to us they may be supposed 
to stand. 

The belief of eyil spirits has been almost universal in the world. 
. The exceptions may indeed be said to be only the few who, in more 
"modern times, have supposed this universal opinion to be simply the 
result of superstition. 

The Jews undoubtedly held this faith. It is not disputed that it 
is taught in their later books, and that in the time of Christ the belief 
in such spirits was universal. But it has been denied that such views 
can be traced prior to the time of the Babylonish Captivity. If by 
this is simply meant that, prior to that time the Jews knew not of the 
fall of angels formerly pure, it is only equivalent to declaring that 
they knew not in what manner evil angels had come into existence. 
But if it is meant, as seems to be the case, that they did not know of 
the existence of evil angels, the position may be easily refuted from 
the Scriptures. That this is the opinion of these objectors, is plain 
from the fact that they suppose the origin of these ideas was the Per- 
sian belief of the two principles of good and evil, which they had met 



199 Abstract of Theology^. 

with in Chaldea. That faith taught indeed the origin of evil in this 
world, but not among the spiritual intelligences above. Besides it at- 
tributed the existence of evil to an antagonistic principle to the great 
good, perhaps equally powerful, yet constantly contending, perhaps 
finally to be vanquished. 

The fact that the existence of these beings is taught at all, either in 
the Old, or the New Testament would be sufficient to make it an ar- 
ticle of our faith. Yet, as this charge has been made,, it is best to refer 
to it, and to show from the Scripture proofs that it is untenable. 
The truth is that with the exception of Zechariah 3;1.2, (where the 
high priest Joshua is standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan 
standing at his right hand to resist him), there is no passage in 
all the post Babylonish Scriptures by which the doctrine of evil an- 
gels could be proved, while there are numerous passages in the 
earlier books. 

In that book, supposed of all others to be the oldest, and by many 
ascribed to Moses, the book of Job, Satan is represented as presenting 
himself among the Sons of God before the Lord. Job. 1 : 6. 

This may be said to be a merely dramatic work ; yet scarcely can 
it be denied, that the conception of such beings must have existed 
prior to a dramatic use of them. 

In 1 Chron. 21-1, however. Satan is said to have provoked David 
to number Israel. In Ps. 109=6, the Psalmist says: "Set. thou a 
wicked man over him, and let Satan stand at his right hand". The use 
of the word "devil" also teaches the existence of evil spirits. The child- 
ren of Israel are directed to offer no more their sacrifices unto devils. 
Lev. 17=7. In Deut. 32=17, they are charged with this crime. In 2. 
Chron. 11:15, Rehoboam is said to have ordained priests for the high 
places, and for the devils, and calves he had made. In Ps. 106:37, 
the Israelites are said to have sacrificed their sons, and daughters 
unto devils. 

Evil angels are also spoken of by the name of "evil spirits." In 
Judges 9=23, God is said to have sent an evil spirit between Abimelech 
and the men of Shechem. In 1 Sam. 16:14, the Spirit of the Lord is 
said to have departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord 
to have troubled him ; in verse 15, Saul's servants recognize this 
fact in addressing Saul, and verse 16, propose to send for a skilful 
player on the harp, through whom he should be made well, and in; 
verse 23, this device is spoken of as successful. 

When we turn now to the New Testament, we find the proofs even 
more abundant. No one questions that this is the apparent language 



Abstract of Theology. 200 

.of this part of Scripture, whatever explanations are resorted to for 
escaping its plain meaning. The passages are not here given because 
they will be presented in connection with other points, and enough 
of them will then be given to prove this a New Testament doc- 
trine. The word Satan is used thirty-eight times in the New Testa- 
ment; the word devil twenty-five times; the words "evil spirit" 
four times. 

The commonly received doctrine, as to the original state of evil 
angels, is that they were once pure, and holy, such as are now the 
angels of heaven, though not, as they, confirmed in holiness. This is 
founded upon the supposition that it is impossible for God to create 
beings otherwise than free from sin. It is rendered certain by the 
expression of Scripture "the angels which kept not their first estate." 

The only objection which can be made to this is suggested in such 
questions as these ; how can a being perfectly holy be led to the com- 
mission of sin? how would a being realizing the character and power 
of the Supreme Being ever be so unwise as to revolt against it? 

But these questions present only metaphysical difficulties which 
must vanish before actual facts. The existence of such beings is 
plainly taught; we are told in Scripture that they kept not their first 
estate ; and all argument of this kind is merely an argument from 
our ignorance. 

It might be supposed that appeal might be made to the case of 
Adam ; but, while this is true to some extent, this difference must be 
observed, that there was preseut with our first parents an evil one to 
suggest the sin. Yet, even then, the suggestion might have arisen 
within the mind of either Adam, or Eve, as the result of desire, in any 
way awakened, which, when fostered, may have become too strong. 
And, if this be psychologically possible with them, why may it not 
have been so with Satan and his angels? 

It has been because of the difficulties which thus have seemed to 
perplex this question, that on the one hand the very existence of 
such beings has been questioned ; and, on the other, the theory has 
been advanced, that Satan, either as created, or uncreated, has always 
had a sinful nature, and been filled with enmity to God. Both theories 
are readily dispelled by the one Scriptural expression : "the angels 
that kept not their first estate." 

Despite this plain teaching of Scripture, however, efforts have been 
made, even by Christian men, to explain away this language, and 
especially that of the New Testament. They have claimed that all 



201 Abstract of Theology. 

that Christ and his Apostles said upon this subject is to be ac-. 
counted for upon the principle of accommodation. It is said that 
they knew the prejudices of the Jews, and that, not wishing, upon 
an unimportant matter, to excite these prejudices, they accommodated 
the language of their teachings to Jewish ideas, and used such words 
as seemed to imply belief in such beings. 

(1.) But the principle here assumed is dangerous. How can we 
know that Christ taught anything, if we be allowed thus to strip his 
language of its natural force ? 

(2.) The object of Christ was not to accommodate himself to prej^ 
udices ; but to remove them. What instance can be given of such 
conformity? None can be justly claimed. On the contrary, he said 
that he came not to send peace, but a sword, and to preach, not a 
gospel of accommodation, but one of contention, and exclusiveness. 
He drove out, with a whip of small cords, those who defiled the 
temple. He persisted in healing upon the Sabbath day. He inveighed 
against the traditions of the elders. He attacked the hypocrisy of 
the Scribes, and Pharisees, who were reputed most holy. Does any 
of this conduct look like that of one who would have shrunk from 
declaring the non-existence of Satan ? was not the doctrine of the 
resurrection, as against the Sadducees, and of the salvation of publi- 
cans, and sinners, and the adoption of the Gentiles, as against the 
Pharisees, even more unpalatable than would have been the denial of 
the existence of evil spirits? 

(3.) The idea of mere accommodation to the Jews would not have 
involved the language upon this point used to his disciples in private. 
The time of the return of the seventy was peculiarly suitable to 
remove these prejudices from their minds. They came to Christ say- 
ing: "Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name." 
And Christ only teaches more plainly the existence of such beings, 
declaring that he beheld Satan, as lightning, fall from heaven, at the 
same time assuring them that even the power to cast out devils was 
no subject of joy in comparison with the fact that;, their names were 
written in heaven. 

(4.) A still stronger objection may be drawn from the circum- 
stances of the temptation. There the devil is said to have tempted 
Christ. In cases of human temptation, it may be said that it is the 
principal of evil in the heart that moves the man to do wrong, and 
that thus he is tempted. But what principle like this was there in 
Christ? Upon what ground can he be said to have been tempted 
except by the personal solicitation of the evil one ? 



Abstract of Theology. 202 

Another question of interest has been as to the cause of the sin of 
angels. Some, because of a misconception of the meaning of Gen. 6:2, 
have attributed it to lust. But this is not only contrary to the nature 
of angels, but also places the fall of man before that of the devil. 
Some have held that it consisted in the temptation of man. But he 
who tempted with evil intent, and falsehood, must himself have sinned 
beforehand. Besides, this tempter was one only, and the evil angels 
are many. Others think that it was envy of angels superior to them. 
This was the theory of the Jews, who, holding that of guardian angels 
over nations, supposed that some of them aspired to higher positions 
than were allotted to them. But the more common opinion is that it 
was a sin of pride. The apostle says of a bishop (1 Tim. 3:6,) that he 
must not be "a novice, lest being lifted up with pride, he fall into the 
condemnation of the devil." From this it appears probable that 
pride was the sin of Satan, and that for this he was condemned. See 
Kitto'sCyc: Art. Satan. Dick's Theology, vol. 1, p. 377. Knapp, 
p. 218. 

Yet another question has been raised, as to their relation to each 
other in this sin. In the fall of man we recognize both a natural, and 
federal head. From these we see that all are made sinners. But did 
the angels have a federal head, or did they sin individually, each one 
for himself. There is a difficulty in either hypothesis. On the one 
hand, how could a federal head, when he had sinned, infuse, by that 
sin, an unholy nature into those whom he represented ; on the other 
hand, as we recognize the first beginnings of sin to be in the desire, 
how could so many simultaneously have revolted against God? 

In favour of the federal theory, may be stated the fact of the head- 
ship of one over the others, and the nature of the sin, pride, which 
may have arisen from the occupancy of a position of such power. Yet 
these do not necessarily imply it. Supreme position may have existed 
without federal relation. 

In favour of the other theory may be adduced, (1.) the coexistence 
at that time of all these angels that sinned; this was not true of all 
mankind, and is a reason why they may have acted differently. (2.) 
The immediate intercourse, because of their nature, which all may 
have had with God, to know His will, and to perform it. In man 
this existed only in Eve, and may account for her personal sin be- 
fore that of her representative. (3.) The greater lack of excuse 
that would exist in a fall as the result of individual probation. (4.) 



203 Abstract of Theology. 

The fact that no provision of salvation has been made for them, either 
in the representative Saviour of man, or in one for angels. 

The main difficulty in the way of this theory may be removed by 
the natural supposition, that all the angels, or a portion of them to 
which all of these belonged, were put at one time upon probation, 
just as Adam was. In that probation some kept their first estate, 
and some kept it not. The fall of all, may, therefore, have been in- 
stantaneous. That one of them may have been the instantaneous in- 
stigator of this, is not improbable. That he may have held rank over 
them before, is in accordance with what is taught of the rank of all 
angels. That he might in this act have attained this position is also 
not improbable. 

For the sin which they have thus committed, they are held account- 
able by God. They seem to have been already punished by being re- 
served in everlasting chains under darkness, unto the judgment of the 
great day. But on that day their punishment will be probably con- 
summated. 

In the meantime they are permitted access to this world. Satan is 
called the God of this world. 2 Cor. 4;4. This access is evident from 
the history of the fall, from that of the temptation of Christ, from the 
warnings given to believers against him as their adversary, and from 
the declarations made as to the power he exercises to blind the minds 
of them that believe not. 

As a finite being, Satan must be limited in his approaches to man. 
The doctrine of Satan is often objected to, upon the ground that 
thus we make out a being of almost equal power with God, and every 
where present. But this power of constant approach arises not prob- 
ably from, personal contact, but from the multitude of inferior agents 
which he thus controls. By these he is every where operating ; per- 
haps not operating always thus directly upon each one ; but al- 
ways keeping in progress the influences which he dispenses among 
men. 

What then, we may inquire, is the extent of the power of evil 
spirits. 

1. Undoubtedly they have great power over the minds of men. 
They may tempt, deceive, darken the minds of men, pervert the judg- 



Abstract of Theology. 204 

ment of men, excite them to pride, anger, and other evil passions. It 
was Satan that instigated the Jews to put Christ to death. The old 
phraseology of the courts of justice in indictments for murder recog- 
nize his power. It is not confined to the subjects of his kingdom; but 
over the people of God also, even after they have been rescued from 
their slavery to Satan, does he maintain, and exercise the power to 
tempt, though not to destroy. 

2. Satan also exercises power over the bodies of men. In Job 2:7 
he is said "to have smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot 
unto his crown." In Luke 13:16, a woman is spoken of who had 
been bound by Satan for eighteen years by disease. In Acts 10:38, 
one of the works of Christ is said to have been the healing of all who 
were oppressed with the Devil. In 1 Cor. 5:5 excomunication is 
spoken of as the delivering over of one to Satan for the destruction of 
the flesh. Satan is also said in some sense to have the power of death. 
Heb. 2:14. 

It is here that naturally arises the question of demoniacal influence 
as proving, if true, the existence, and number of such beings. Have 
Satan and his messengers the power thus to enter, and afflict the bodies 
of men. 

The most serious objection to the idea of such possessions is that 
they have been confined to the age of Christ, and the Apostles. 

(1.) But this is not certain. We even have declarations to the 
contrary. The Jews of the second century professed that there were 
such in their day. This was true, also, of the Christians of the third 
century. But the evidence of such possessions at these periods is not 
conclusive. 

(2 ) Dr. Macknight, quoted by Dr. Dick. Theol., vol. 1, p. 403, says 
"that the possessions mentioned may have been diseases carried to an 
uncommon height by the presence, and agency of demons." And, if 
this is allowed, there have probably been such in all ages. 

(3.) But this difficulty must yield before the direct testimony of 
Scripture. A reason may be given for their especial prevalence in the 
time of Christ. The great struggle was about to take place between 
Christ, and Satan; and uncommon freedom was doubtless granted 
to him, and his assistants. 

The following points show that the idea of demoniacal possessions 
is Scriptural. 

(a.) The actions of the daemons are expressly separated from those 
of the persons possessed. See Mark 1:32; Luke 6:17.18; Matt. 10:8. 



205 Abstract of Theology. 

(b.) The actions, and language show the personality of some evil 
being, or beings, within the sufferer. They beseech Christ not to 
torment them before their time; they answer his questions; they come 
out of the possessed, and enter into the swine ; they know Christ, and 
call upon him as the Son of God. 

(c.) The writers mention facts connected with them needless to be 
mentioned which favour this. The number of demons cast from 
Mary Magdalene is given. In Matt. 12:43.44, Jesus says of a demon, 
"this kind goeth not out but by prayer, and fasting." 

(d.) Jesus addresses the demons. Matt. 8:32. He orders the 

daemons to come out, and permits them to go into the swine. Mark. 

,9:25. Christ rebukes the foul spirit. See also, Luke 4:35. In 

Mark. 1:25. Christ orders the daemon to hold his peace and come out. 

These are sufficient to prove the scripturalness of this doctrine, and 
to show that Christ did not speak, and act merely from a spirit of ac- 
commodation. 

3. As to their power over the laws of nature, and natural causes. 

They have no power to change the laws of nature. These are es- 
tablished by God, and are beyond the power of any of his creatures. 
He upholds, and preserves with the same almighty power with which 
He created. 

But, from Satan's superior wisdom, from his spiritual nature, and 
from his numerous emissaries, he has great power within the circle of 
those laws. It is thus that he performs the lying wonders by which, 
were it possible, he would deceive the very elect. It is thus that, in 
connection with his power over the mind, he has aided to establish 
false religions, to vitiate certain forms of the true religion, and to 
work as the great power of Antichrist in the world. 

The connection held by him with the ancient heathen oracles is a 
subject worthy of study, and eminently suggestive of the extent of the 
power he exercises. Those oracles failed precisely where Satan's 
knowledge failed ; the want of power to predict the future. Answers 
that affected present knowledge were abundant. Ambiguous replies 
that could bear various interpretations, were frequent. "Undoubtedly," 
says Dr. J. Pye Smith, "fraud was practised." * * * Still there appears 
satisfactory reason for believing that in some degree, and occasionally 
there was a real diabolical influence." [First Lines, p. 337.] The case 
of divination spoken of in Act 16:10-18 seems conclusive upon this 
point; "a certain damsel" says Luke, "possessed with a spirit of divina- 



Abstract of Theology. 206 

tion, met us which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying. 
The same followed Paul, and us, and cried, saying these men are the 
servants of the Most High God, which show unto us the way of sal- 
vation. And this she did many days. But Paul being grieved, 
turned, and said to the Spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus 
Christ to come out of her, and he came out the same hour." 

Dr. J. Pye Smith presents in his First Lines of Theology some val- 
uable points in reply to the objections that may be made to the doc- 
trine of wicked spirits, and also on the practical uses of the doctrine. 
[See pp. 337-340.] 



Abstract of Theology. 208 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE XX. 



CREATION OF MAN. 

I. The Scripture Account. 

The Scripture account of the creation of man is given in four place g 
in Genesis, The first in Gen. 1=26-28, is of both male, and femata 
The second is of Adam only, in Gen. 2=7. The third is of the creation 
of the woman whom Adam at that time called Isba, (woman), because 
she was taken out of Man, (Ish). Gen. 2*18-23. Subsequently Ch. 
3:20, he called her Eve because she was "the mother of all living.'' 
The fourth is found in Gen. 5:1.2, and states that God called them 
Adam. There are allusions to the statements thus made in two other 
places in this book, namely, Ch. 3:19.23; and Oh. 9:6.7. The other 
Scriptures, both of the Old, and New Testaments, endorse the correct- 
ness of all the facts stated in Genesis by frequent allusions to one, or 
another of them as undoubted truths. See Ps. 100:3.14 ; Ecc. 7:29 ; 
12:7; Isa. 64:8; Mai. 1:10; 2:15; Matt. 19:4.5; Mark 10:6.7; Acts 
17:25-29; Rom. 9:20 ; 1 Cor. 11:7-9 ; 15:45-47 ; Col. 3:10. The 
Scripture doctrine, thus revealed, is that man was created by God, 
being formed, as to his body, from earthy material, and as to his soul, 
by direct creation; that he was made male, and. female, one Adam, in 
the image, and likeness of God. The Adam thus made, the Scriptures 
also teach, was the progenitor of all the present race of man. Indeed, 
they appear to allude to him as the embodiment of that race. Adam 
is not given as a proper name as are Cain, and Abel, and Noah, but 
is used to express the creature God proposed to make, (Gen. 1;26), as 
both male, and female. Gen. 5:2. "In all the other instances in the 



209 Abstract of Theology. 

second, and third chapters of Genesis, which are nineteen, it is put 
with the article, the man, or the Adam. It is also to be observed, 
that, though it occurs very frequently in the Old Testament, and 
though there is no grammatical difficulty in the way of its being de- 
clined by the dual, and plural terminations, and the pronominal suf- 
fixes, (as its derivative dam blood is), yet it never undergoes those 
changes; it is used abundantly to denote man in the general, and col- 
lective sense, — mankind, the human race, but it is never found in the 
plural number. When the sacred writers design to express men dis- 
tributively, they use either the compound term sons of men, (benei 
adam), or the plural of enosh, or ish." [Kitto's Cyc. Art. Adam, 
par. 3.] The importance of this fact will hereafter be seen. It is con- 
firmed by the title of "the second Adam" given to Christ. 

II. The Unity of the Race. 

The expression above, "the present race of men," was not intended 
to intimate a belief that there have been more races of men than one. 
This, however, has been contended for; but, while the possibility of 
other races before, or contemporaneous with Adam, may be admitted, 
the unity of the present race, and its common descent from Adam, 
must be maintained. 

The idea of a Prseadamite race, "was first raised to notice by Isaac 
Peyrere, who in 1655 published his book styled "Prseadamitse." He 
pretended to find his Praeadarnites in Rom. 5=12-14. The heathen, 
according to him, are the Praeadarnites, being, as he supposed, created 
on the same day with the beasts, and. those whose creation is men- 
tioned in the first chapter of Genesis. Adam, the father of the Jews, 
was not created until a century later, and is the one who is mentioned 
in the second chapter. Since the time of Peyrere, this hypothesis has 
been exhibited more connectedly; and has been asserted independ- 
ently of the, authority of Moses ; or in other words it has been 
asserted that the human race is older than Moses represents it." 
[Knapp's Chris. Theol. p. 185.] ■ 

So far as this hypothesis is confined to the past existence of other 
races of men, who had passed away when Adam was created, or who 
were at least destroyed before, or at the flood, it may be admitted as 
a possibility. There is no direct statement of Scripture to the con- 
trary. Any proof which would make it certain, or even probable, may 
be admitted. But while this is possibly, it is not probably true. 



Abstract of Theology. 210 

Nothing in Scripture, not even with great violence, can be wrested to 
its support, The account of Creation, and the manner in which the 
Adam there created is spoken of, is contrary to any idea that the 
creations in the first, and second chapters of Genesis are of any but 
the one race. The scientific evidence as to the method of God's crea- 
tions concurs with the Biblical in furnishing no proof that God has 
ever created the same animals at different periods, or from any. other 
than one original source of each species. While these facts, there- 
fore, are not conclusive against the possibility of more than one 
creation of human beings, it renders it highly improbable. , 

But so far as this is intended to deny the unity of the present race, 
and to declare that any portion of it is not of Adamic origin, it is di- 
rectly contrary to the Word of God. 

1. Because the Scriptures trace the race of man now existing back 
to Noah, and through him to Adam. 

2. Because they teach also that all others, except the eight saved 
in the Ark, were destroyed by the flood. It any other races of men 
existed before that time, which is not probable, they must then have 
been destroyed with the others of the Adamic race. 

3. They not only speak of all mankind in general as though of this 
one race, but declare expressly, that God "made of one every nation of 
men for to. dwell on all the faie of the earth, having determined their 
appointed seasons, and the bounds of their habitation." [Canterbury 
Revision. King James has "made of one blood."] Acts 17:26. 
This is especially emphatic because spoken to the Athenians who 
claimed a special separate origin from others. 

4. The Scriptures account for the universal sinful condition of men, 
which they assert, by not only a representative, but natural relation 
to Adam. 

5. Salvation from sin is offered through Christ as the second Adam, 
whose fitness for his work was secured, not only by his representative 
relation, but also by his assumption of the same nature with man. 
Therefore his genealogy in Luke is traced back to Adam. It was also 
to "the whole creation,", (Mark 16=15), that Christ commanded his 
gospel to be preached, and "of all the nations," (Matt. 28=19), that he 
ordered disciples to be made. 

Science accords with Revelation in teaching the unity of the race. 
1. It shows that among all men are the same essential character- 
istics which make a man. This is denied by none. There is the same 



211 Abstract of Theology. 

outward form, and inward structure, and also like mental, and moral 
characteristics. 

2. While variations in each of these respects unquestionably exist, 
they are all within the limits of a single species. 

The science of Comparative Zoology shows : 

(1.) That species are capable of great variations. 

(2.) That the variations may become permanent. 

(3.) That under favourable circumstances, with the lapse of time, 
this permanence becomes more, and more fixed, and incapable of re- 
turn to the original type. 

(4.) That, however, there is after all a tendency to return, which, 
under similar conditions with those of the original state, develops 
itself. 

(5.) That while offspring from parents of different species is pos- 
sible, that offspring is itself either altogether unfruitful, or as Dr. 
Cabell says, "the fertility is partial and temporary, rarely if ever 
extending through more than two generations." [Unity of Mankind, 
p. 77]. 

(6.) That the variations in man are at least equalled by those in 
other species. 

Dr. Bachman asserts that "every vertebrated animal, from the 
horse down to the canary bird, and gold fish, is subject, in a state 
of domestication, to very great, and striking varieties, and that 
in the majority of species these varieties are much greater than are 
exhibited in any of the numerous varieties of the human race." 
[Ductrine of the Unity of the Human Race, p. 181, quoted by Dr. 
Cabell in Unity of Mankind, p. 34.] "Blumenbach" says, Cabell, p. 33. 
"long ago pointed out the great difference between the cranium of the 
domestic swine, and that of the primitive wild boar, and remarked 
that this difference is quite equal to that which has been observed 
between the skull of the Negro, and the European." 

(7.) That the various races of men, when they intermarry, pro- 
duce offspring which is itself continuously fruitful. 

(8.) That while the Negro type of man, the most distinct, and 
showing the greatest variety from the Caucasian or white race, may 
be traced far back in the monumental history of Egypt, there is no 
delineation of it in the earliest records for nearly fifteen hundred 
years. This is admitted by Nott and Gliddon in their Types of Man- 
kind, p. 259, though these writers, speak of the Negro "as contem- 
porary with the earliest Egyptians. [See Cabell, p. 91-92.] 



Abstract of Theology. 212 

3. The science of Comparative Philology also supports the doctrine 
of the unity of the human race. This science is as yet in its infancy, 
but has grown vigorously during the short period of its existence. 
Already the languages of men have been reduced by some to four, by 
others to three, and yet by others to two different forms, and the 
tendency is to connect all language with some one common source. 
Whether this can be done, or not, is uncertain. The position is, at 
least, conceded that variety in languages does not militate against the 
unity of mankind. It may be impossible to establish absolute unity 
of speech. The confusion at Babel renders this not improbable. But 
the investigations of this science show that the ideas of several separate 
physical origins of the race are not true, because the grouping of men, 
as to physical race, does not correspond with the grouping rendered 
necessary by their different languages. . Prof. Whitney, who believes 
that the science of philology cannot now, or ever, decide either for, 
or against this unity, says "it does not seem practicable to lay down 
any system of physical races which shall agree with any possible 
scheme of linguistic races. Indo-European, Semitic, Scythian, and 
Caucasian tongues are spoken by men whom the naturalists would 
not separate from one another as of widely diverse stock ; and on the 
other hand, Scythian dialects of close, and indubitable relationship, 
are in the mouths of people who differ as widely in form, and feature, 
as Hungarians, and Lapps; while not less discordance of physical type 
is to be found among the speakers of various dialects belonging to 
more than one of the other great linguistic families." [Language 
and the Study of Language, p. 370.] The fact of this intermingling 
of dialects, and races shows a common origin beyond the time of phys- 
ical, and linguistic changes. Thus do the two sciences, which were 
once so antagonistic to the doctrine of the unity of mankind, com- 
bine with each other to establish its truth. 

III. The Nature of Man. 

The nature of man is composite. It is usually considered as a 
union of body and soul. 

The body is material, and is the highest form in this world of mate^ 
rial existence. 

Matter is presented in creation in different forms. It is impossible 
to say whether it exists, or has ever existed without special form, and 
substance. Science only knows it as found in different materials, which 
are called primary, because we cannot reduce them to any more simple 



213 Abstract of Theology. 

form, common to more than one. Of these materials, all things that we 
know are composed. Matter is called inorganic in these simple forms, 
and yet there is a kind of organism even here. Some of this so called 
inorganic matter attains to living organism in plants, which have what 
is called vegetable life. It exists in a still higher form in conscious 
sentient being, known as animal life. The highest organism is in 
man as an animal. He partakes w T ith other animals of bodily 
form, appetites, desires, and passions. His bony structure is analo- 
gous to theirs, which approaches it closely, and yet with marked dis- 
tinctions which manifest his yet higher life, with nobler capabilities. 
So, also, with his muscular covering, or flesh with its nervous system, 
especially culminating in a brain of superior size, and weight. 
Through the latter man has capacity for superior intellectual powers 
over other animals, for the exercise of which his bodily shape is pecu- 
liarly fitted. In their mere animal life, the instincts of the lower 
animals are much stronger than in man, and more reliable. In man 
instinct is feeble because its place is more than supplied by his higher 
intellectual nature. It is only when his moral nature is involved, that 
instincts appear which approach in strength, and unerring guidance 
this peculiarity of the brute creation. 

The personality of man, by which is meant his individual conscious 
existence, is distinctly associated with his higher nature, the intellec- 
tual, and the moral. The brute evidently lives in itself, and is what 
it is solely because of its animal life. It cannot go beyond it. There 
is no outward development in it of itself, and even the utmost train- 
ing by man can carry it no farther than to the development of memory, 
and obedience through fear, which belong to this animal existence, 
and in which only such faint resemblances to man's higher faculties 
can be attained, as are reached by man himself through self training 
in the realms of animal instinct. 

It is evident, therefore, that the higher nature of man, so far from 
being a part of his animal life, really takes its place, and dwells in the 
body, using it as a means of contact with the external world, in which 
man as a spiritual being, is thus enabled to live, and exercise the 
faculties of his higher nature. 

We have already learned the existence of spiritual beings, which, if 
they have, or can have, form, and body at all, have only one of a 
spiritual nature. Man alone is possessed of both spirit, and body. 
He is, therefore, the link which binds together the world of spirit, 
and that of matter. His existence is not one only, but twofold. 



Abstract of Theology. 214 

Nor is it made so by such a composition as confounds the two elements 
by mingling them into a third substance differing from each of these 
two, but such as makes a union in one personality of both the 
natures, so that he is as truly animal as though he were not spirit, 
and as truly spiritual as though he were not animal. Each nature 
retains in a mysterious union its own attributes, and properties, 
absolutely, so that one is merely animal, and the other purely 
spiritual, and the one personal conscious being is personal, and 
conscious in each, in different, or in the same moments, and is 
also conscious of being at the same time Man, or all that is involved 
in the united possession of both natures. The. consequence of this 
also is a peculiar possession by Man of all the results of a communica- 
tion of the properties of one nature to the other without any actual 
communication. Thus matter, which in itself is without motion, 
without feeling, and only becomes so in animal life, and in that life is 
without capacity for self training, and skilful manipulation through 
self imposed habits, and which especially is not capable of sinful, or 
holy acts, or habits, attains to each of these through the union with a 
spiritual person and in a peculiar way, otherwise not possible, becomes 
receptive of punishment, or reward, for right, or wrong doing. So 
also a personal spirit, which cannot through his spiritual nature be 
affected by matter, and cannot act upon it, or use it, is through 
this union operative in it, and by means of the bodily powers is 
brought into contact with the world of material forces, and becomes a 
voluntary force in connection with the mechanical laws, and forces of 
the universe. Thus is it, that through this union man probably alone 
except God, introduces,. and accomplishes results of conscious purpose 
in the material universe. Good, or evil angels, who would there 
operate, must do it through the influences they can exert upon man. 
The union of both body and soul are necessary to constitute man 
Of necessity his conscious individuality is inseparably associated with 
his spiritual nature, for in him there is no separate animal life in the 
body from that of the spirit which is united with it. Without that 
spirit, therefore, the body is but a form of clay. But the spirit alone 
is but a spirit. It has not all of human nature. It is not a man. To 
make man', the body is necessary, not necessarily the same body 
always, neither of the same size, nor with all its parts perfect, nor of 
the same ever continuing materials, nor without change, but such a 
body as belongs to human nature, and is fitted for the contact of the 
conscious personal spirit with the world of matter. If, at any time, 
therefore, the spirit and body shall be separated, the spirit will not 



215 Abstract of Theology. 

properly be called man until a subsequent reunion. Until then it 
would be known, and spoken of as the spirit of the man, or the soul 
of the man, but not as the man himself. Accordingly the Scriptures 
speak thus of all men during the period intervening between death, 
and the resurrection of the judgment day. See Rev. 6;9; 20:4; 
Heb. 12:23, and according to the interpretation which supposes Christ 
preached to departed spirits, 1 Pet. 3:19. It is thus, also, that the 
resurrection of the body, and its reunion with the soul becomes neces- 
sary to carry out the purposes of God, both as to the rewards, and 
the punishments of the eternal future. 

A question here naturally arises as to the nature of the contact 
between the personal spirit, and the body. This we have no means of 
answering. It is a mystery which, as a fact, is both known and re- 
vealed, but of the manner of which we have no revelation, and no 
knowledge. All must be conjecture. Dr. J. Pye Smith gives in his 
"First Lines," p. 342, three theories: "(1.) That it is through phys- 
ical influence materially of mental volitions, and cerebral, and ner- 
vous action, producing muscular motion; (2.) that it is due to occa- 
sional cause by which God's omnipotent, and universal agency pro- 
duces all the motions of the body to correspond with the volitions of 
the mind; and, (3.) that it results from preestablished harmony by 
which it is arranged that they take place at the same time, and space, 
without any influence upon each other." But these are all objection- 
able. The last makes the body and soul entirely without connection 
with each other. The second makes God, and not man, operate the 
body, and that too without the soul's agency in any respect. The 
first is no explanation for it accepts the physical connection, but does 
not state how it arises. 

Both body, and soul are by nature pure in their original condition, 
sin being found essentially neither in the one, nor in the other. 
There is nothing in matter that is corrupting, as the Manichaeans 
taught, and nothing in the lower nature which of itself begets sin in 
an innocent soul. On the contrary, while temptation may present it- 
self through the body, the actual sin is committed by .the soul either 
separately, or in union with the body. The sinfulness of the soul in 
its original state has been universally admitted. 

Each of these constituents of man is a unit. The body is one, 
though composed of several members, and is affected through one sense 
pnly, namely, contact, though because ofi ts different forms, it is 
usually, and conveniently divided into five. The soul also is one, and 



Abstract of Theology. 216 

itself brings the man into contact with the world of mind, and spirit. 
Its powers, likewise, though many, are not separate and independent 
faculties, but it is the soul that thinks, that feels, that purposes, and 
that loves. For convenience these powers are, in Intellectual Philo- 
sophy, divided into, and discussed under the three heads of the Under- 
standing, the Will, and the Affections. These are exercised about 
all mental, and moral truths. Even the knowledge of what is right 
and wrong, is not attained by a different power from that by which 
we learn what is wise, and great. What is called conscience, or the 
moral faculty, is concerned only with impressing upon us our duty to 
do the right, and not to do the wrong. But even this is simply the 
vsoul recognizing the nature of obligation to God. 

Some have supposed that man has more than the twofold elements 
of body, and soul. "Pythagoras, and after him, Plato, and subse- 
quently the mass of Greek, and Roman philosophers, maintained that 
man consists of three constituent elements, the rational spirit, (nous 
or pneuma), the animal soul (psuche), and the body. Hence this 
usage of words became stamped upon the Greek popular speech. 
And, consequently, the apostle uses all three, when intending to ex- 
press exhaustively in popular language the totality of man, and his 
belongings. "I pray God that your whole spirit, and soul, and body, 
be preserved blameless." 1 Thess. 5:23; Heb. 4.12; 1 Cor. 1544-46. 
Hence, some theologians conclude that it is a doctrine, given by di- 
vine inspiration, that human nature is constituted of three distinct 
elements.'' 

''The use, made of these terms by the apostles, proves nothing more 
than that they used words, in their current popular sense, to express 
divine ideas. The word "pneuma" designates the one soul, emphasizing 
its quality as rational. The word "psuche" designates the same soul, 
emphasizing its quality as the vital, and animating principle of the 
body. The two are used together to express properly the entire 
man." 

"That the pneuma, and psuche, are distinct entities cannot be the 
doctrine of the New Testament, because they are habitually used 
interchangeably, and often indifferently. Thus psuche, as well as 
pneuma, is used to designate the soul as the seat of the higher intel- 
lectual faculties. Matt. 16:26; 1 Pet. 1:22; Matt. 10:28. Thus also 
pneuma, as well as psuche, is used to designate the soul as the anima- 
ting principle of the body. James 2:26. Deceased persons are indif- 
ferently called psuchai, Acts 2:27.31; Rev. 6:9; 20:4; and pneumata, 
Luke 24:37.39; Heb. 12:23." [Hodge's Outlines, pp. 299, 300.] 



217 Abstract of Theology. 

Other passages, not mentioned above, upon which light is supposed 
to be thrown by this distinction, are 1 Cor. 2:14.15; James 3:15, and 
Jude. 19. 

Others, which show a promiscuous use of these words, and thus that 
the distinction is incorrect are Matt. 27:50 ; Mark. 15:37; Luke 23:46; 
John 19:30; Acts 7:59. 

This apparent teaching of the New Testament is also that of the 
Old. The account of man's coming into a living condition is given in 
Gen. 2:7; "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, 
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a 
living soul." The word "nephesh" here translated "living soul" 
means ordinarily mere animal life. It is the same word that occurs 
in Gen. 1:20, translated "creature that hath life,'' in 1:24 "living 
creature," in 1:30 "life," in 2:19 "living creature," in 9:12.15.16, 
"living creature." Gen. 2:7, therefore teaches that man attained his 
animal life by the inbreathing of God. But Deut. 4:29 uses this same 
word for the rational spiritual part of man. So also does Deut. 30:10. 
See also Job 16=4, and 1 Sam. 1:15. Gesenius Lexicon, Sec. 3, says: 
"To it are ascribed love, Isa 42:1; Cant. 1:7; 3:1-4; Gen. 34:3; joy; 
Ps, 864; fear; Isa 15 : 4; Ps. 6=4; piety towards God, Ps. 86.4; 104:1; 
143:8, and confidence, Ps. 57:2. * * * The soul is said to weep, Ps. 
119:28, to be poured out in tears, Job 30:16; to cry for vengeance, Job 
24:12; and also to invoke blessings, Gen. 27.4:25. More rarely things 
are attributed to the soul, or mind, (nephesh,) which belong, (a) to 
the mode of feeling, and acting, as pride, Prov. 28=25; patience, and 
impatience, Job. 6:11; (b) to the will, or purpose, 2 Kings 9:15; 1 
Chron. 28:9, (c) to the understanding, or faculty of thinking, Ps. 
139:14; Prov. 19=2; 1 Sam. 20 ; 4; Deut. 4:9; Lam. 3:20." Also, Sec. 
5, he says: "with suffixes it is put very frequently for: I myself, 
thou thyself, &c." In Sec. 2, par. 3, he had already said as to the 
relation between this word and ruach, that "they are sometimes op- 
posed, so that nephesh is ascribed to brutes, and ruach to men, Job 
12=10; but ruach is also ascribed to beasts in Ecc. 3:21." This word 
ruach is that which is especially used of the spirit of God ; but it is 
also "spoken both of man and beasts. Ecc. 3:19.21; 8:8; 12 : 7; Job 
12.10 * * * *." Once the human spirit is called the ruach of God," 
Job 27=3 as being breathed into man from God, and again returning 
to God. Gen. 2=7; Ecc. 12:7; Ps. 104:29." Gesen. Lex. under Ruach 
Sec 2. 



Abstract of Theology. 218 

It is manifest from these facts that the two words are both used in 
the Old Testament, to express both animal life, and the higher spiritual 
nature, and therefore, that no radical distinction exists between them. 
The same word, which expresses the animal life of the beasts, is ap- 
plied to man as a rational, and moral being, as well as to his animal 
life. And the same which usually expresses the higher spiritual na- 
ture is also used even of the brutes. It is also plain that the same 
act, by which the spiritual nature was conferred upon man, brought 
his animal life into being. In man, therefore, it would seem that the 
spirit becomes the actual living animating principle, and needs not to 
have superadded to it the mere animal life, but embraces it within the 
life which is that of the spirit. The doctrine of the Old Testament on 
this subject, therefore, corresponds with that of the New. The con- 
stituent parts of man are simply body, and soul. When the animal 
life is the predominant idea, nephesh, and psuche are most apt to be 
used, because the spiritual man is regarded especially in that aspect. 
When the idea of the higher nature is the main feature, ruach and 
pneuma are used because reference to that peculiarity of it is most prom- 
inent. But the use of all of the words for either aspect shows that it 
is after all the one principle in man simply differently contemplated. 

The powers of both soul and body are unlimited within their re- 
spective spheres; the word unlimited being taken, not in the sense of 
infinite, but in the greatly more restricted one of indefinite. Whatman 
can physically accomplish, either as an individual over his own per- 
son, or over others, or by combination with others over the world of 
matter, is so great, that no one can ever say the limit has been 
reached. This is even more true of the soul in its intellectual, and 
moral nature, in the exercise of thought, and reason, and in the per- 
ception of moral truths, and the attainment of holy perfection. 

The soul of man, as a true spirit, possesses all the qualifications which 
belong to spirit. It has individual personality, consciousness, intel- 
lectual powers, free agency, capacity of moral action, is subject to 
law, is capable of voluntary sin, and is accountable to God for its ac- 
tions, and for any self caused spiritual condition of sin. It has natural 
ordained immortality, by which is meant, not that God could not have 
deprived it of life had He chosen so to have ordained, for no created 
nature can have of itself any power, much less any right, of continued 
immortality, but that God has conferred immortality upon the nature 
of spirits, and that they are thus immortal through His ordination. 



219 Abstract of Theology. 

IV. The Origin of Souls. 

As the soul of the first man was a direct creation of God, the in- 
quiry naturally arises, are the souls of all his descendants thus created, 
or whence come they? This question becomes a difficult one because 
of the immateriality and unity, and simplicity of the soul, on the one 
hand, and on the other, because of the participation of the spirits of 
all men in sin. 

I. To avoid these difficulties some have believed in the preexist- 
ence of the souls of men, which, either voluntarily, or as the punish- 
ment of previous sin, enter the bodies of men. In this manner their 
existence in a sinful condition may be accounted for, without propa- 
gation of souls on the one hand, or the creation of the souls of sinful 
men on the other. 

This theory of preexistence has been held in three forms. The first 
supposes that all the souls of men were created at the same time with 
that of Adam, each for his respective body, with which it either volun- 
tarily, or necessarily unites itself at some fixed period in its earliest 
existence. Relations to Adam somewhat similar to those of the body, 
or rather relations which involve the whole man, both soul, and body, 
may cause a sinful condition under which each man, both as to soul, 
and body is born sinful. The second form maintains that these souls, 
or spirits are unfallen angels, which, of their own accord, assume this 
union with the body, that through it they may attain to the higher 
relationships to God, and the state of greater glory which belong to 
His Redeemed. The third affirms, that they are angels who had fallen 
in another sphere, unto whom God affords this additional probation, 
or upon whom He has imposed this position as a punishment of their 
sin. 

The first of these forms, to be any explanation at all of the difficul- 
ties, must recognize an actual existence of the souls of all men at the 
same time with that of Adam. To say that the mere idea of these 
beings was present with the Divine mind, in the sense in which Plato, 
and his followers believed the whole creation to exist in the Divine 
mind, as a model in accordance with which all things have been 
made, or that all things were present with God in the purpose which 
according to the Scriptures He eternally formed of their future exist- 
ence, through which he knows them, and they are eternally coexistent 
with Him, is to suppose an actual creation afterwards, and to leave 
unremoved every objection which may be pressed against the direct 



Abstract of Theology. 220 

creation of each soul at the time of its entrance into the body, and 
to render useless any theory of preexistence at all. 

But, if these souls actually existed, they must at their creation have 
had conscious life with intelligence, and moral character. 

The chief objections to the theory in this aspect are, 

(1.) That no man has ever had' consciousness of a preexistent state 
or memory of things which occurred therein. This fact ought to be 
conclusive against this theory, for that consciousness in the soul is not 
affected by its union with, or separation from the body, is plain from 
our consciousness in our present existence, and from what the Script- 
ures teach of the condition of man between the hour of death, and 
the resurrection. 

(2.) The Scriptures give no hint of any creation, or existence of 
the spirit of any man, prior to its connection with the body. 

(3 ) No facts in the human life, or in the constitution of man sup- 
port the theory; nor does reason in any way suggest or sustain it. It 
has originated entirely in an attempt to escape difficulties. 

(4.) It undertakes no explanation of the condition, or position of 
these spirits, regarded either as innocent, or guilty, while awaiting 
the period of their union with the body. 

Against the second and third forms, the same objection of lack of 
consciousness, and memory exists. Against the second, especially, 
may be urged the impossibility for any purpose of a holy being volun- 
tarily choosing a sinful condition, for such choice would itself be sin, 
which the theory supposes is rewarded by God by granting to 
these spirits their sinful desire. Against both the second, and the 
third, it may be said that the Scriptures nowhere ascribe the origin of 
sin in any of the human race to any other source than that of Adam, 
and that Heb. 2:1.6, expressly excludes angels from the benefits of 
Christ's redemption. The King James text is, "For verily he took 
not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abra- 
ham." But the more correct translations of the Canterbury Revisers, 
and of their American Committee are still stronger. The former is, 
"For verily not of angels doth he take hold, but he taketh hold of the 
seed of Abraham." The latter is, "For verily not to angels doth he 
give help, but he giveth help to the seed of Abraham." 

2. Another theory as to the origin of souls, which has very exten- 
sively prevailed, is that the souls of men, as well as their bodies, are 
derived from their parents. According to this, it is man as the whole 
man that begets, and is begotten ; and as body produces body, so it is 



221 Abstract of Theology. 

thought that soul produces soul. It is commonly known as Tradu* 
danism from the Latin traducere, to lead, or bring over, as the layer 
of a vine, for the purpose of propagation. This theory is based upon 
several grounds. 

(1 ) Its advocates claim that it is not wholly unsupported by the 
Scriptures. While Gen. 5*1, declares that God created man "in the 
likeness of God," in v. 3, it is said that "Adam begot a son in his own 
likeness, and image, and called him Seth." But this passage "only 
asserts that Seth was like his father. It sheds no light on the mys- 
terious process of generation, and does not teach how the likeness of 
the child to the parent is secured by physical causes." [Hodge Sys. 
Theol. vol. 2, p. 68.] The fact that God breathed into Adam the 
breath of life but did not into Eve, is also adduced as proof of the de- 
rivation of her soul from his, as well as of her body. But this is an 
argument from ignorance. We know not how Eve was animated into 
life, but surely in her case there was no begetting of any kind, and 
therefore from it, even allowing that her soul came from Adam, no light 
could be thrown upon that of others subsequent to it. The 
language of Christ to Nicodemus, (John 3r6), "that which is born 
of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit," 
can have no application, because the spiritual birth, or soul-be- 
getting, here spoken of, is that of the new nature in man produced 
by the Holy Spirit of God. It would seem, therefore, that this theory 
has not any real support from any direct teaching of Scripture. 

(2.) But, while this fact is admitted by many of its advocates, it 
is claimed that this theory accounts better than any other for the 
transmission of a sinful nature, and is thus especially supported by 
the Scripture doctrine of Original Sin. The Bible as well as experi- 
ence teaches that men are born with a corrupt nature, and that the 
corruption is no less in the soul than in the body. This theory denies 
that God can directly create a sinful soul, and challenges a just ex- 
planation of the sinful state of man even in infancy unless it is due, 
as is the sinful body, to its connection with that of the parent. It is 
unquestionably difficult, though not impossible, to give such an ex- 
planation as shall be satisfactory, and hence this is a strong argument 
in favour of this theory. But, on the other hand, it is improper, and 
dangerous to say that the doctrine of original sin is not true, if there 
be no propagation of souls. That doctrine is plainly revealed, and is 
derived from unquestionable facts. Its correctness does not depend 
upon any theory which may be presented for its explanation. All 
that is justifiable is to show that this theory, if in no other respect 



Abstract of Theology. 222 

objectionable, will account for it. But the universal sinfulness of 
man may have otherwise arisen, and whether or not we know the 
manner in which it has come to pass, we are not at liberty to say that 
its truth depends upon the correctness of any theory which Scripture 
has not distinctly connected with it. 

(3.) It is also argued in favour of .Traducianism that the account 
of Creation in Genesis represents God as resting after the creation of 
man, both male and female. It is said, that this rest is evidently one 
from direct creation, because God is constantly creating mediately 
through the powers of reproduction conferred on plants, and animals; 
that, therefore, if the souls of men are produced from the parent with 
the body, there is only in each case an instance of this mediate creation; 
but, that, if directly created by God, there appears to be no sense in 
which he has ceased from creation, or can be said to have rested "from 
all His work which He had made." But nothing can be argued con- 
clusively from these statements. We know not exactly what is meant 
by this Sabbath day rest of God. But that it was not a perpetual 
rest in all direct, and immediate acts, as well as mediate, is seen 
in various well known instances of God's direct action; as in the con- 
ception of Christ by the Holy Ghost; in the working of miracles; and 
in the work of the Holy Spirit in the regeneration of the souls of 
men. 

(4.) Traducianism receives strong support from the transmission 
of the mental, and moral characteristics of men from parent to child. 
These become equally fixed, and permanent with those of the body. 
They may be traced throughout the various branches of any one race. 
• They are found as national peculiarities which distinguish one people 
from another. They appear in families, though not so plainly 
manifested because of the many intermarriages with other families, 
and of the tendency to reproduce the spiritual as well as the bodily 
trails of remote ancestors. They are often very strongly marked 
between parent, and child, and the transmission is so plain, that the 
general law has been laid down that generally, though not univers- 
ally the sons follow the mental, and moral features of the mother, and 
the daughters those of the father. This argument would be very de- 
cisive could we entirely separate the spiritual man from the influence 
of the corporeal. "But, "says Dr. Hodge" this argument is not con- 
clusive, because it is impossible for us to determine to what proximate 
cause these peculiarities are due. They may all be referred, for what 
we know, to something peculiar in the physical constitution. That 
the mind is greatly influenced by the body cannot be denied. And a 



223 Abstract of Theology. 

body having the physical peculiarities belonging to any race, nation, 
or family, may determine within certain limits the character of the 
soul." Sys. Theol. vol.. 2, p. 70. 

(5.) The advocates of this theory also urge that only thus can we 
account for such an incarnation of Christ as would make him truly of 
the race of man. His human soul must like his human body have 
proceeded from his mother. But the incarnation is a mystery as to 
the manner of which we cannot dogmatize, and from which especially 
we can draw no conclusions as to others of mankind. We know 
not even the connection with his mother of the human body of the 
Son whom she conceived. All that we know is that Jesus was 
truly her child, and that as such he was of our nature. How he 
became such is not revealed fully. But, if it be true of all others 
that their souls are direct creations of God, and yet that they are 
of the human race, then the fact that the soul of Christ was not 
derived from his mother would make him no less a man than all 
others. The incarnation of Christ indeed the rather favours the 
theory of Creationism ; for if his soul, and his body were both de- 
rived from his mother, it is impossible to see how sin was not 
transmitted to him as it is to others. On the theory of Creationism 
we can understand how he could be born sinless, as a pure soul 
might then have been united with the body miraculously prepared 
for him, which body itself because produced by direct divine agency, 
would also be pure, and sinless. 

The chief, and almost the only objection to this theory of any 
weight, is that the idea of propagation of souls involves their ma- 
teriality. If this be true the theory must be rejected, even if we 
are left without any satisfactory explanation. That we cannot solve 
the problem otherwise, does not show that it has no solution. 

Any explanation of the transmission of souls must recognize in 
the soul something different from the body, and something that 
has all the elements necessary to a true spirit. To suppose, there- 
fore, that the spirit in man is only a higher form of the animal 
life, to which have been added intelligence, and moral capabilities, 
is to suppose the soul to be incapable of any separate existence from 
that animal life, and therefore, to be dispelled into non-entity with 
the death of the body. This is so contrary to what the Scriptures 
teach of its separate and' continued existence after death, as not to 
be admissible for a moment. It is because this has been believed 



Abstract of Theology. 224 

to be necessarily true of it, if in any way material, and because 
propagation of souls has seemed to involve their materiality, that 
this theory has been so generally rejected. 

But it may be questioned whether any such materialism is essen- 
tial to a propagation of souls. It is claimed that extension belongs to 
matter alone, and that only through extension can there arise the ca- 
pacity for increase in number. But this argues a knowledge of the 
nature of created spirits which we do not possess. Because the unity 
of nature and attributes in God as the Great Spirit, the Father of 
Spirits, involves actual simplicity in Him, does not prove that the 
same is necessarily true of the spirits He has created. It is not cer- 
tain that they may not have some kind of spiritual bodies. Is it not 
more than possible that He, Who, though a simple spirit, can create 
spirit like Himself though not of His own substance, may be able to 
confer upon such spirits such a power of multiplication, that, what He 
does by direct agency in the first creation, He also may do through 
them in the mediate creations of other spirits? It is not affirmed that 
this is true ; but is it possible to affirm that it cannot be true? 

Besides we should be careful how we dogmatize as to what can, and 
cannot be true of spirits, when we now know so much to be true 
which a priori we should have judged to be impossible. Thus we 
now know through the creation of man that spirit can be so associated 
with matter as to give it a fixed location in space, as to bring it into 
such contact with matter as to be able to act through it, and upon it, 
and, more than this, that it is affected, by the condition of the material 
organism with which it is connected, that its powers are weakened or 
strengthened through that organism, and its moral faculties influenced 
towards sin, or holiness. These, and many similar facts, we now know 
to be true, which, without experience and Scripture teaching, we 
should have denied to be possible because of the substantial differences 
of Spirit, and Matter. Even in the Divine Spirit we are taught that 
forms of multiplication and division exist, which, without the instruc- 
tions of the Word of God, we might have denied to be possible of His 
Spirituality, and Simplicity, yet which, as now revealed, are seen to 
be in no respect inconsistent with these necessary peculiarities of the 
One God. 

These facts are not sufficient to enable us to maintain this theory of 
Tr^ducianism as true, but only as possible; but they at least suffice to 
keep us from asserting that descent of one spirit from another can 
only come through some material substance in the soul, and from ac- 



225 Abstract of Theology. 

cepting, as the only possible solution, any other theory which may be 
accompanied with objections equally insuperable. 

3. The more prevalent theory as to the origin of souls is known as 
Creation-ism. It maintains that the soul of each man is directly cre- 
ated by God at the time of its union with its body. 

The arguments in its favour are thus presented by Dr. Hodge. 

(1.) "That it is more consistent with the prevailing representations 
of the Scriptures. In the original account of the creation there is a 
marked distinction made between the body and the soul. The one 
is from the earth, the other from God. This distinction is kept 
up throughout the Bible. Body and soul are not only represented 
as different substances, but also as having different origins. The 
body shall return to dust, says the wise man, and the spirit to 
God who gave it. Here the origin of the soul is represented as 
different from and higher than that of the body. The former is 
from God in a sense in which the latter is not. In like manner God 
is said to form ''the spirit of man within him" (Zech. 12:1); to give 
"breath unto the people upon the earth," "and spirit to them that 
walk therein." (Isa 42:5). This language nearly agrees with the ac- 
count of the original creation, in which God is said to have breathed 
into man the breath of life, to indicate that the soul is not earthy or 
material, but had its origin immediately from God. Hence he is 
called "God of the Spirits of all flesh." (Num. 16:22). It could not 
well be said that He is God of the bodies of all men. The relation in 
which the soul, stands to God as its God and Creator is very different 
from that in which the body stands to Him. And hence in Heb. 12:9, 
it is said, "We have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and 
we gave them reverence : shall we not much rather be in subjection 
unto the Father of Spirits, and live?" The obvious antithesis here 
presented is between those who are fathers of our bodies and Him 
who is the Father of our spirits. Our bodies are derived from our 
earthly parents, our souls are derived from God. This is in accord- 
ance with the familiar use of the word flesh, where it is contrasted, 
either expressly or by implication, with the soul. Paul speaks of 
those who had not "seen his face in the flesh," of "the life he now lived 
in the flesh." He tells the Philippians that it was needful for them 
that he should remain "in the flesh;" he speaks of his "mortal flesh." 
The Psalmist says of the Messiah, "my flesh shall rest in hope," 
which the apostle explains. to mean that his flesh should not see cor- 
ruption. In all these, and in a multitude of similar passages, flesh 
means the body, and "fathers of our flesh" means fathers of our bodies. 



Abstract of Theology; 226 

So far, therefore, as the Scriptures reveal anything on the subject, 
the authority is against Traducianism and in favour of Creationism." 
. (2.) "The latter doctrine, also, is clearly most consistent with the 
nature of the soul. The soul is admitted, among Christians, to be im- 
material and spiritual. It is indivisible. The Traducian doctrine 
denies this universally acknowledged truth. It asserts that the soul 
admits of "separation or division of essence." On the same ground 
that the Church universally rejected the Gnostic doctrine of emana- 
tion as inconsistent with the nature of God as a Spirit, it has, with 
nearly the same unanimity, rejected the doctrine that the soul admits 
a division of substance. This is so serious a difficulty that some of 
the advocates of the ex-traduce doctrine endeavour to avoid it by 
denying that their theory assumes any such separation or division of 
the substance of the. soul. But this denial avails little. They main- 
tain that the same numerical essence which constituted the soul of 
Adam constitutes our souls. If this be so, then either humanity is a 
general essence of which individual men are the modes of existence, 
or what was wholly in Adam is distributively, partitively, and by se- 
paration, in the multitudes of his descendants. Derivation of essence, 
therefore, does imply, and is generally admitted to imply, separation 
of division of essence And this must be so if numerical identity of 
essence in all mankind is assumed to be secured by generation, or 
propagation." 

(3 ) "A. third argument in favour of Creationism, and against Tra- 
ducianism is derived from the scriptural doctrine as to the person of 
.Christ. He was very man ; he had a true human nature ; a true body 
and a rational soul. He was born of a woman. He was, as to his 
flesh, the Son of David. He was descended from the fathers. He 
was in all points made like as we are, yet without sin. This is ad- 
mitted on both sides. But, as before remarked in reference to realism, 
this, on the theory of Traducianism, necessitates the conclusion that 
Christ's human nature was guilty and sinful. We are partakers of 
Adam's sin both as to guilt and pollution, because the same numer- 
ical essence which sinned in him is communicated to us. Sin, it is 
said, is an accident, and supposes a substance in which it inheres, or 
to which it pertains. Community in sin supposes, therefore, com- 
munity of essence. If we were not in Adam as to essence we did not 
sin in him, and do not derive a corrupt nature from him. But, if we 
were in him as to essence, then his sin' was our sin both as to guilt, 
and pollution. This is the argument of Traducianists repeated in 
every form. But they insist that Christ was in Adam as to the sub- 



227 



Abstract of Theology. 



stance of his human nature as truly as we were. They say that if 
his body and soul were not derived from the body and the soul of 
his virgin mother he was no true man, and cannot be the redeemer 
of men. What is true of other men must, consequently, be true of 
him. He must, therefore, be as much involved in the guilt and cor- 
ruption of the apostasy as other men. It will not do to affirm and 
deny the same thing. It is a contradiction to say that we are guilty 
of Adam's sin because we are partakers of his essence, and that Christ 
is not guilty of his sin, nor involved in its pollution, although he is a 
partaker of his essence. If participation of essence involve commun- 
ity of guilt and depravity in the one case, it must also in the other. 
As this seems a legitimate conclusion from the Traducian doctrine, 
and as the conclusion is anti-christian and false, the doctrine itself can- 
not be true." [Sys. Theol. vol. 2, pp. 70-72. See the whole discus- 
sion, pp. 65-76, especially the concluding remarks, pp. 72-76.] 



There are two objections chiefly made to the theory of Creationism; 
(1.) that God is thus supposed by a direct originating act to create a 
pure soul to inhabit a sinful body and thus to partake necessarily of 
its sin, or to create a soul for that purpose already sinful, and (2.) that 
direct creation is not accordant with His present relations to the 
world and manner of acting in it. To this latter it has already been 
replied, that we have instances of God's direct creations which forbid 
the assertion that He acts only through secondary means. But it was not 
intended, then, to assert that God acts in the creation of souls, any' 
more than in their regeneration, entirely apart from all connection with 
physical circumstances, and causes. His action may occupy some re- 
lation to them, though it may not be through them. 

In the first section of this lecture also, in discussing the account of 
man's creation, attention was called to the fact that the Scriptures 
appear to allude to Adam as the embodiment of the race of man, and 
it was added "the importance of this fact will hereafter be seen." It 
would seem from that statement, that in some form there is a certain 
unity in human nature. Those who hold the theory of Traducianism 
believe that "the souls of children, as well as their bodies exist in their 
parents in Adam, either as real beings, like the seeds in plants, and 
so have been propagated from Adam through successive generations, 
which is the opinion of Leibnitz, in his "Theodicee," or they exist in 
their parents merely potentially, and come from them by propagation, 
or transference." [Knapp's Christian Theol. p. 201-] Now, while the 



Abstract of Theology. 228 

theory of propagation may be rejected, the fact of the unity of human 
nature still exists. The recognition of that existence will aid in solving 
many difficulties in theology, and among others may afford a probable 
solution of a direct creation of God which does not involve responsibility 
on His part for the guilt of a newly created soul. If it be true that 
human nature is one, and yet that men are many, it follows that a 
man is only "a manifestation of the general principle of humanity in 
connection with a given human body," [Hodge, vol. 2, p. 75,] and 
that thus he becomes a conscious individual person of that humanity. 
This is analogous to, but, yet, quite dffferent from the threefold per- 
sonal relations in the Trinity of the Godhead. The latter is a three- 
fold separate personal subsistence in one common, undivided, and in- 
divisible Divine nature, or essence. The former embraces many se- 
parate individual personal manifestations of one human nature, his 
appropriate part of which is possessed by each person who thus be- 
comes an embodiment in himself of the common humanity. If, then, 
it be accordant with God's general method of working, and with His 
purpose to produce this personal existence under proper conditions, 
new souls may be thus created whose connection with the common 
humanity may be as intimate as though they were originally contained 
in Adam for propagation, and who are therefore created sinful without 
any more relation of God to their creation than would have existed 
had they been propagated. 

That the common method of God, in the production of life of any 
kind, may be of this nature is ably set forth by Dr. Hodge in answer 
to the declaration of Delitszh that the continued creation of souls is 
inconsistent with God's present relation to the world, and that He 
now produces only mediately i. e. through the operation of second 
causes. 

"This" says Dr. Hodge, "is a near approach to the mechanical 
theory of the universe, which supposes that God, having created the 
world and endowed His creatures with certain faculties and proper- 
ties, leaves it to the operation of these second causes. A continued 
superintendence of Providence may be admitted, but the direct exer- 
cise of the Divine efficiency is denied. What, then, becomes of the 
doctrine of regeneration? The new birth is not the effect of second 
causes. It is not a natural effect produced by the influence of the 
truth or the energy of the human will. It is due to the immediate 
exercise of the almighty power of God. God's relation to the world 
is not that of a mechanist to a machine, nor such as limits Him to 



229 Abstract of Theology. 

operating only through second causes. He is immanent in the world. 
He sustains and guides all causes. He works constantly through 
them, with them, and without them. As in the operations of 
writing and speaking there is with us the union and combined 
action of mechanical, chemical, and vital forces, controlled by the 
presiding power of mind; and as the mind, while thus guiding 
the operations of the body, constantly exercises its creative energy 
of thought, so God, as immanent in the world, constantly guides 
all the operation of second causes, and at the same time exercises 
uninteruptedly His creative energy. Life is not the product of 
physical causes. We know not that its origin is in any case due to 
any cause other than the immediate power of God.. If life be the 
peculiar attribute of immaterial substance, it may be produced agree- 
ably to a fixed plan by the creative energy of God whenever the con- 
ditions are present under which He has purposed it should begin to 
be. The organization of a seed, or of the embryo of an animal, so far 
as it consists of matter, may be due to the operation of material causes 
guided by the providential agency of God, while the vital principle it- 
self is due to His creative power. There is nothing in this derogatory 
to the divine character. There is nothing in it contrary to the Scrip- 
tures. There is nothing in it out of analogy with the works and working 
of God. It is far preferable to the theory which either entirely banishes 
God from the world, or restricts His operations to a concursus with. 
second causes. The objection to Creationism that it does away with 
the doctrine of miracles, or that it supposes God to sanction every act 
with which His creative power is connected, does not seem to have 
even plausibility. A miracle is not simply an event due to the im- 
mediate agency of God, for then every act of conversion would be a 
miracle. But it is an event, occurring in the external world, which 
involves the suspension or counteracting of some natural law, and 
which can be referred to nothing, but the immediate power of God. 
The origination of life, therefore, is neither in nature nor design a 
miracle, in the proper sense of the word. This, exercise of God's cre- 
ative energy, in connection with the agency of second causes, no 
more implies approbation than the fact that He gives, and sustains 
the energy of the murderer proves that He sanctions murder." [Sys. 
Theol. vol. 2, pp. 74, 75. 

I close the consideration of this question by adopting the language 
with which Dr. Hodge closes his discussion. 

"The object of this discussion is not to arrive at certainty as to 



"Abstract of Theology. 230 

what is not clearly revealed in Scripture, nor to explain what is, on 
all sides, admitted to be inscrutable, but to guard against the adoption 
of principles which are in opposition to plain and important doctrines 
of the word of God. If Traducianisrn teaches that the soul admits of 
abscission or division; or that the human race are constituted of 
numerically the same substance; or that the Son of God assumed into 
personal union with himself the same numerical substance which 
sinned and fell in Adam ; then it is to be rejected as both false and 
dangerous. But if, without pretending to explain everything, it 
simply asserts that the human race is propagated in accordance with 
the general law which secures that life begets life; that the child de- 
rives its nature from its parents through the operation of physical 
laws, attended and controlled by the agency of God, whether directive 
or creative, as in all other cases of the propagation of living creatures, 
it may be regarded as an open question, or matter of indifference. 
Creationism does not necessarily suppose that there is any other exer- 
cise of the immediate power of God in the production of the human 
soul than such as takes place in the production of life in other cases. 
It only denies that the soul is capable of division, that all mankind 
are composed of numerically the same essence, and that Christ as- 
sumed numerically the same essence that sinned in Adam." [Sys. 
Theol. vol. 2, pp. 75, 76. 

V. The Image and Likeness of God. 

In the hrst account of creation God is represented as saying : "Let 
us make man in our image, after our likeness." Gen. 1:26. A na- 
tural question has arisen whether there is any difference between the 
words "image," and ''likeness." It has been earnestly contended that 
there is some distinction to be made between them, and various con- 
flicting opinions have been expressed as to what that distinction is. But 
it is not probable that any was meant, or can be established. None 
is apparent between the original Hebrew words ; and the Scriptural 
use of them elsewhere seems to imply that none exists. In Gen. 1:27, 
the first of these is used alone, and is twice used. In Gen. 9-*6, we 
have the first word alone, while in Gen. 5:1, the second alone appears, 
although in Gen. 5:3, both are employed in stating the image, and 
likeness of Adam in which Seth was begotten. The New Testament 
equally fails to make any distinction. In 1. Cor. 11:7, image (eikon), 
and glory (doxa), are used;, in Col. 3:10, image (eikon) alone 



231 Abstract of Theology. 

and James 3:9, likeness (omoiosis). The assumption, therefore, that 
there is any distinction between the words is entirely gratuitous. The 
two are merely synonymous, and are used in accordance with a com- 
mon Hebrew mode of speech. 

A more important question is to what is meant by that image, or 
likeness. 

1. There is probably no reference to the bodily form of man. God, 
as pure spirit, has no body, in the likeness, or image of which man 
could be created. The body of man, although in many respects su- 
perior to that of the brutes, is in a great measure like theirs. The 
analogy between man and animals generally, but especially those 
which are nearest to him in the stage of being, is very striking. But 
there can be no analogy between him and God in this respect. In no 
way even could special honour be put on man in his physical nature, 
except as that nature .gives evidence of the existence with it of those 
spiritual powers which elevate man above the brutes. It is as the 
dwelling place of that spirit, and because of its intimate association 
with the life existent in that body, that any sacredness can be attached 
to the bodily form. It is this therefore, that is doubtless meant by 
Gen. 9^6, where the shedding of the blood of man is made punishable 
on the ground that "in the image of God made He man/' 

2. That image and likeness consists in the possession of a spiritual 
nature. It is in this respect that man is like God, Who is called 
"the God of the spirits of all flesh," (Num. 16:22; 27:16;); and the 
Father of spirits, (Heb. 12:9). The spirits of men are also spoken of 
as peculiarly the works of his hands, (Ecc. 12:7; Isa 57 : 16; Zech. 
12=1), and it was to Him that our dying Lord commended his spirit. 
(Luke 23:46). 

As thus spiritual, man has all the peculiarities of a true spirit. 

(1.) He is a personal being with individual conscious existence, 
and action. 

(2.) He has the intellectual powers by which he knows all things 
within the sphere of his being. 

(3.) He has that power of contrary choice which constitutes him a 
free agent, although controlled in that choice by the prevailing motive; 
by which is meant the motive which most pleases him, and which is, 
therefore, that to which his own nature gives prevalence. 

(4.) He has a moral nature, or a nature with reference to which 
we can say, "ought," and "ought not." 



Absteact of Theology. 232 

(5.) This moral nature as orginally existent must have been (a.) 
not only without taint of sin, and (b.) without tendencies to sin, and 
(c.) not merely in a condition of such equipoise between sin and holi- 
ness, as would make the soul indifferent to the one or the other, 
but (d.) must have been entirely inclined towards the right, with a 
holy taste for the holiness of God, ha.ving capacity to discern its 
beauty, and inclination to love Him as its possessor, accompanied by 
readiness to obey the law of God, and perception of man's duty to 
serve Him. 

That such was the original condition of man's moral nature is evi- 
dent from Eph. 4:24, "And that ye put on the new man, which after 
God is created in righteousness, and true holiness." These elements, 
which belonged to the image of God in which man was created, have 
been lost. They are restored again in the renewing of man when 
created anew in Christ Jesus. That the whole image was not de- 
stroyed by the sin of Adam, appears from the fact that man is spoken 
of, as in that image, subsequent to the tall, and before the renewal. 
See Gen. 9=6; James 3:9; 1 Cor. 11:7. But, that there was a loss, 
not merely of innocence, but of original righteousness, is evidently to 
be inferred from the above mentioned passage in Ephesians. 

(6.) Perpetuity of existence also belongs to the nature of created 
spirit, and is another point of similarity between all spirits, and God. 
This is commonly called immortality. But created spirits have not an 
immortal spiritual life. The soul may die. The death of the soul, 
however, is not the cessation of conscious personal existence. It is 
simply the destruction of its spiritual life by its contamination by sin, 
and its separation from the favour of God. What the Scriptures teach 
of the death of the soul, shows, therefore, that natural immortality 
should not be affirmed of man's spiritual nature, But perpetual ex- 
istence has been given by God to the nature of created spirits. He 
might have made that nature otherwise. But He has chosen that it 
shall be ever existent. This perpetuity of existence is not, however, 
merely in His purpose. He could have willed otherwise. No crea- 
tion of God could have such a nature as of itself to be imperishable. 
It has been argued from the simplicity of the soul that it cannot be 
destroyed by God. But, evidently, He who created without com- 
pounding, could also destroy without dividing. But He has chosen 
to give such a nature to spirit, that to that nature belongs perpetuity 
of existence. It is, however, not self existent, as is God, for it has 
not in itself the power of self existence. Without God it could no 
longer be. It must be ^reserved, in the conferred nature, bv that 



233 



Abstract of Theology, 



same power which created it. But God has given this nature to 
spirits, which He purposes ever to preserve, and, through that gift 
and that'preservation, they have an endless existence. 

3. When God purposed to make man, He also said, "and let them 
have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, 
and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping 
thing that creepeth upon the earth." Gen. 1:26. 

Because of this language some have supposed that this dominion 
was also a part of the image, and likeness of God. 

But, evident^, this was an office conferred upon the man made in 
God's image, and not a part of that image. The Scripture presents it 
as something that w T as to follow after the nature was conferred upon 
man. The resemblance between him, and God, in this respect, is very 
striking- That becomes more so, when we recognize the fulfilment of 
this purpose in its highest sense in the mediatorial dominion of the 
Godman. But this position is one of office, and not of nature, and the 
image of God declared of man is manifestly an image of His nature. 

Nor does dominion belong essentially even to God Himself. Were 
it thus His, the outward creation over which it is exercised must have 
been eternal. It arises in connection with that Creation. He has 
this right over it, because not only its creation, but even its preser- 
vation is due to Him alone. His relation to it is, therefore, one of 
office only, and not of nature. Hence there can be no such connection 
of His nature with the dominion He exercises, as to make the domin- 
ion conferred on man a part of the image of God in which he was 
created. 

VI. Man perfect but not infallible. 



It was after the creation of man that God saw, as to everything that 
He had made, that it was "very good," literally "exceedingly good." 
Gen. 1:31. On the previous days we are only told that He saw it 
was good. There seems here a special emphasis, therefore, as to the 
perfection of man's entire nature. The points of that perfection have 
been exhibited in showing that man was made in the image of God. 
But, that it did not include perpetual continuance in it, we know 
from the fact that man fell from it in sinning against God. His na- 
ture, therefore, was fallible. In this respect he was not peculiar, for, 
as we have heretofore seen, there have been angels also who kept not 
their first estate. Indeed fallibility belongs to the nature of created 
spirits. It is involved in their possession of the power of contrary 



Abstract of Theology. 234 

choice, that, whenever good and evil are presented, the latter may be 
chosen, and thus the spiritual creature may fall. Any idea of a pro- 
bation implies the presentation of such choice. The fall of a 
spiritual being may be prevented, either, by not appointing to it a pro- 
bation, or presenting the trial under such circumstances as will leave 
no temptation to choose the wrong, or by God's so influencing the 
mind as to counteract all the power of such temptation. But, that 
God has a right to test his creatures is unquestionable, as well as, that 
He is not bound to surround them with such circumstances, or so to 
counteract the power of all temptation, as to make sinning impossible. 
But, if He should thus protect or decline to test, the natural fallibility 
of the creature would still be a fact. He is not liable to fall simply 
because God protects him from that liability. He has not an infal- 
lible nature. The holy angels are often spoken of as confirmed in 
holiness; but this is not due to any change of nature, but must either 
be known from a knowledge of God's purpose, or perhaps of His pro- 
mise, even if, in part, or altogether, accomplished by what they have 
seen of the fearful evil of sin in the other angels, or in man. Yet 
without such promise, or declared purpose of God, there is no as- 
surance that they may not yet fall. 

The perfection, therefore, of any created being does not consist in 
infallibility. The fact that man has fallen, argues nothing against 
his original perfection. For this, he needed only to have truly the 
nature which God gave him. God could not give him an infallible 
nature, though He could preserve him infallible in whatever nature 
He might choose to bestow. But He was under no obligation to do 
this; none to man; none to His own righteous nature. He had the 
right to test man at His will, and, thus testing, to leave him to him- 
self, without constraint to the contrary, to choose as he might see fit. 
This He did, and man fell; but his fall was not due to the lack of any 
natural perfection. * 



Abstract of Theology. 236 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE XXI 



PROVIDENCE. 

Intimately associated with the doctrine of Creation is that of Pro- 
vidence, which is, however, a distinct method of Divine activitv- By 
acts of Creation, God brings into existence the things which He 
makes, and confers upon them their respective natures, qualities, pro- 
perties, modes of existence, and laws of being, thought and action. 
By acts of Providence, He simply preserves these creations, or permits, 
or causes decay, or change in them, to such an extent, and within such 
limits as He has purposed; and, at the same time, in fulfilment of like 
purpose, He directs, controls and guides them in accordance with 
the natures He has given them, and the laws He has imposed upon 
them. 

Providence is also closely allied to Predestination, or Purpose ; but 
the distinction between these two is also equally clear. The Purpose 
of God is His predetermined plan as to what shall be done in His 
Creation by Himself, or by others. It fixes the events which shall 
happen, and the methods and agency by which they will take place. 
But Providence is the actual doing, or permitting the things thus 
purposed, and securing the ends thus designed. The purpose also is 
formed in eternity ; the Providential acts are performed in time. 

But, despite these very obvious distinctions, Providence has been 
confounded both with Purpose and Creation; some holding that there 
is no other Providence except what is involved in Purpose; and others 
going to the other extreme, and maintaining, that Providence is after 
all only a continual creation, and that there is no other connection 
between antecedent, and consequent events than exists in the Divine 



237 Abstract of Theology. 

efficiency giving every moment renewed existence by acts of direct 
creative power. Each of these views is opposed both to reason, and 
Scripture, which teach that there is a divine efficiency operating in 
this world differing in many respects essentially from that exercised 
in creation. This efficiency is displayed both in the Preservation and 
Government of the universe, and of the things which are contained 
w T ithin it. 

I. Providential efficiency now operating/ 

1. In presenting the proof that Providential efficiency is now oper- 
ating in the world, it is natural that attention should first be called 
to the almost universal belief in the Providential action, and care of 
God. This is based upon the same feeling of self dependence in man 
to which reference has been made in the proofs of the existence of 
God. It is the witness to us which God gives, not only that He 
exists, but that He supports, and sustains us in every moment of 
being. 

2. A second proof may be drawn from the world about us. Every 
argument it has afforded for the Being of a God becomes equally con- 
clusive of his Providential care. The argument from causation, in 
tracing back all causes to some being who has the cause of His exist- 
ence in Himself, forces us to find in the present efficiency of such a 
being, the final ground for all things that now occur. That from de- 
sign leads us constantly to trace the purpose God has had in view in 
each event of life, and thus proclaims the presence and efficiency of 
Him who is seen to be working out, even now, the purposes He has 
eternally formed. Moreover, the evidence that the world affords, that 
it is not self existent, and independent, proves the presence and effi- 
cient energy of one upon whom it depends for the properties, qualities 
and life of its varied forms, and for their continued existence. 

3. The fact, which we have learned, of a creation out of nothing, 
shows that the whole Universe exists only through the will, and 
power of God. Since it could only thus come into being, so it could 
only thus remain in being. Any contrary doctrine could only be 
held by those who deny a creation out of nothing. The history of 
philosophical opinions shows that this is true. The doctrine of Pro- 
vidence has only been denied by those who have believed in the 
Eternity of Matter. It is possible to conceive, in the absence of other 
proofs to the contrary, that, as man can construct machines, and leave 
them to work through the laws of nature, so, if nature were self exist- 



Abstract of Theology. 238 

ent, and eternal, and if it possessed of itself all its attributes and 
qualities, the mere fact that God has given it form would not necessi- 
tate His continued presence: He would be acting then, as man does, 
in subordination to, and in the use of the properties and quali- 
ties of matter. But, however God may use these things in mat- 
ter, He does not use them in subordination, but as the Sovereign 
Lord. He has given these qualities. He could take them away. 
He could counteract them. He can destroy them They exist only 
because He wills and causes. But such "will" and "cause" is only 
His Providential operation by which He preserves them, and uses 
them, as their Lord, for His own purpose. His is the exercise of pre- 
sent divine efficiency in them, and through them. 

4. The nature of God Himself also furnishes indubitable testimony 
to His providential operations. This arises in opposite directions ; 
from the limitations of His nature on the one hand, and its infinity 
on the other. As heretofore seen, there are some things which God 
cannot do. He cannot do impossibilities. He cannot confer His own 
incommunicable attributes upon another. This limitation arises from 
the fact that He is God, and beside Him there can be none else. 
It is this limitation which makes it impossible to create a world which 
shall be self existent, and independent, and which, as being such, will 
not need His efficient action for its support and care. To do so would 
be to confer on it His own nature. But the nature of God cannot be 
given to any creature. 

On the other hand the illimitable nature of God's attributes makes 
it impossible that he should not be efficiently present always with His 
creation. His omnipresence does not,simply make Him capable of 
being everywhere, but, by virtue of it Tie absolutely is everywhere. 
He cannot be absent from His creation. He cannot withdraw Him- 
self even if He will. His knowledge of all events within His crea- 
tion is also a necessity of His being. He cannot be ignorant of them 
if He would. The fact that He does not know of the existence of 
anything, is of itself not only proof that it does not exist, but that it 
cannot exist. Because of His goodness, also, He must wish the hap- 
piness of His creatures, and must make provision for that happiness. 
This arises not from any obligation to them, but from another necessity 
of His nature. He must be benevolently good. He must beneficently 
bestow wherever there are obj ects for such bestowal. The omnipresence, 
infinite knowledge, and goodness of the Almighty God, therefore, render 
necessary His Providential care over His creation. There can be but 
one thing that can hinder this benevolent care, and that is sin; which, by 



239 Abstkact of Theology. 

demanding the punitive exercise of God's justice, may change into 
punishment, and misery that which otherwise would be happiness and 
joy. But this, so far from destroying Providence, only introduces 
God as Providentially acting in the form of government also, instead 
of preservation alone. He does not withdraw Himself because of this 
sin. He is still present with the sinner. He continue? to know his 
ways. He exercises Providential care, and even sends blessings still 
upon him. He modifies His action only to correspond with the mod- 
ified relation sin has introduced, Therefore, as the Ruler, and Gov- 
ernor of the Universe, He inflicts the punishment which sin has made 
necessary. Sin alone has brought into existence this restraining and 
punishing rule, and government. But for it, all would be merged into 
that fatherly care which seeks only to bless, and protect, and guide. 
The fact that there would be rewards does not prove any other kind 
of government ; for the rewards of God are, after all, but gracious 
gifts, utterly undeserved, in no respect due except as sovereign boun- 
ties, and given under no other obligation than arises from His own 
truth which binds Him to His purposes, and leads Him to fulfil His 
promises. 

5. The Scriptures abound in testimony to God's Providential effi- 
ciency in the world. It is given in every imaginable form. General 
statements are made, as in Nehemiah 9:6, where the Lord is said to 
have made the heavens and their hosts, and the earth and seas and all 
that is therein, and to preserve them. Specific rule is declared over 
all the phenomena of nature; such as clouds, wind, rain, hail, snow, 
ice, cold, frost, thunder, lightning, storm, earthquakes, and all other 
natural events; many of which, formerly deemed accidental, are now 
seen to be governed by inexorable laws of God. The beasts of the 
field, and the birds of the air, are said to be carefully watched over 
by Him. It is even He that clothes the flowers with their beauty by 
encircling them with His own shining garment of light. But men are 
His especial care. He provides the food of their bodies, and in a 
peculiar way, watches and rules over their souls and lives. This He 
does with respect to the wicked as well as the good. His care ex- 
tends to individuals, to families, to nations, and throughout the world. 
It appears not in great events only, but in those exceeding small ; 
even to the numbering of the hairs of each one's head. So minute is 
the supervision, asserted that some have even thought that the language 
of Scripture partakes of hyperbole. But the investigations of the 
microscope have shown that even to insects the most minute and in- 
visible to the human eye, has God given most beauteous forms and 



Abstract of Theology. 240 

perfect outward coverings. His creative care has, therefore, descended 
to things most minute. Thus has the way been opened to the belief 
that the Scriptures even cannot tell us how minute is the Providential 
care which God is now exercising over His whole creation. 



II. Providence is not continuous creation. 

The evidences of continuous divine action within the w T orld have 
been so manifest, that many have been led to the opposite extreme of 
deeming them actually creations renewed at every moment. 

So far as the intention has been only to magnify the extent and in- 
dividual number of the Providential acts of God, there is no especial 
harm in thus loosely talking of them as continuous creations. It 
might well be said that the power, necessary to continue all things in 
existence, is as great as that which would bring them each moment 
out of nothingness into existent life; and that the particularity with 
which each of these innumerable existences is looked after, and cared 
for, is as minute as if each were at the moment endowed with exist- 
ence, nature, qualities and powers. So long as we look at the mere 
glory to God's creative energy and power, there appears no other ob- 
jection to the term continuous creation, than its loose inaccuracy. 
But, viewed in other aspects, this doctrine is seen to be not only in- 
accurate, and false, but extremely dangerous 

1. It takes away all the relation of cause and effect. No cause 
and its effect can have any relation to each other if both be separate 
Creations of God The former is not productive of the latter, nor the 
latter the result of the former. The one is not a cause, nor the other 
an effect. But, if this be true, what confidence can we have in any of 
the phenomena of nature. I determine to accomplish some end. I 
put forth the energy I perceive necessary. The end is attained. I be- 
lieve it to be due to my action, and purpose. But, according to this 
theory, the result is an act of God which occurs at the moment. It 
is not my action. It is not the result of my effort, or pow T er ; but it 
is only something which God creates, and which seems to have a con- 
nection with my purpose, and effort, but has not. All reality is thus 
taken from life. If I find that I am mistaken here, I can have neither 
belief nor confidence in anything. If there be no real cause here, 
then my mind deceives me, when it urges me to seek a cause for all 
things, and not to rest, as to the universe, except in the belief of an 
uncaused First Cause. The tendency of such a theory is, therefore, to 



241 Abstract of Theology. 

actual atheism. It seems to begin with a most credulous confidence 
in the Almighty, only to end in absolute disbelief of everything. 

2. If any are not driven to actual atheism, they necessarily accept 
essential pantheism. Every efficiency here is God Himself act- 
ing. It is He that everywhere is alone the actor. The phenomena 
which accompany His action are only phantoms, not realities. The 
acorn is not the fruit of the tree. It is His direct production. It is 
a new creation of His hands. When it is planted, it is neither the 
acorn, nor the soil, nor the seasons, nor the air, nor anything else 
which causes a tree to come forth and grow. It is God, who at each 
moment, makes a new creation different from what has preceded, 
though apparently its successor. God thus becomes the animating 
soul of the universe, and acts in it as the souls of men do in their 
bodies. 

3. It absolutely takes away all responsibility for sinful acts, and 
all virtue in those that are holy. These are no longer the acts of the 
individual. He is deceived when he thinks that he wills them, or 
does them. There are no actions but those of God. Besides there is 
no one to be responsible. If the creation is a new one at each mo- 
ment, the creature who did the act is gone. There is no one to be 
punished. The curious phenomenon of multiplied contradictions is 
therefore presented here. There is no action of a man, for it is God 
that has acted. There is no man that has acted, because the one be- 
fore us is another creation ; and, while we have been speaking, he too 
has disappeared, and another has taken his place. The deed has no 
character in its relation to man ; for the man has not done it. God 
alone is responsible for it; for it is His act alone, into which has 
flowed neither the will, nor the power, nor the purpose, nor the activ- 
ity of man, but only those of God. 

4. It takes away all the evidences of an outward creation, and in- 
troduces pure idealism. We believe in an outward creation because 
of the effects which, through the senses, it produces upon our minds. 
But, if everything is a direct creation, these impressions on our minds 
are themselves direct creations made by God, and not by the outward 
world. They give no evidence, therefore, of the existence of anything 
except of that of God and of the individual who is conscious of receiv- 
ing them. If they come from God alone, there is no necessity for 
something outwardly corresponding to them. God and each indivi- 
dual, therefore, may be all that exists. Certainly they are all, of the 
existence of which any one can have any knowledge. 



Abstract of Theology. 242 

III. The Method of God's Providence. 

It is impossible for us to comprehend, much less to explain the 
manner of God's Providential action. We know no more of this than 
of the manner in which He has created. Ignorance of the method of 
either action is however, no reason for believing that it does not exist; 
We, who cannot tell how our own spirits act upon, and through our 
own bodies, may well accept the fact of the action of the universal 
Spirit, as everywhere operating, though much of the mysterious, and 
incomprehensible is therein' involved. A few statements may how- 
ever be made, upon this subject, of facts which may be known. 

1. That this action is universal. It is not limited to certain kinds 
of creation, but extends to all. 

2. That it is not the same on each but accords with the na- 
ture of what is governed. The action upon the material universe is 
more purely mechanical, and governed by the operation of physical 
law. So far as life of any kind, whether vegetable, animal, or spiri- 
tual, is connected with, or composed of matter, these mechanical laws 
must also be actively enforced. But we know not how far even vege- 
table life is inseparable from mere mechanical law. Certainly not en- 
tirely so, since it is also dependent in some degree upon the action of 
voluntary force, and labour in man, who is an instrument under God 
of such life. In animal life we have the phenomena of instinct, 
as well as of self acting and voluntary powers. The Providence of 
God must here differ from its relation to mere material substances 
which are inert, and without senses, or volitions. But we can form no 
idea of the nature of the specific action thus rendered necessary. In 
man the Providential action of God is further complicated by the ex- 
tent of his reasoning powers, by the freedom of his will, by his self 
control over his affections, by his original capacity to do right or 
wrong, and especially by his fallen condition. The most difficult pro- 
blems as to God's Providence naturally .arise here. That we cannot 
solve them does not disprove Providence. That the action of Provi- 
dence is in accord with the nature of man, and is consonant with the 
holiness, justice, and goodness of God, we feel assured. It is well for 
us to rest in such assurances in matters which we cannot penetrate. 
It is wise always to recognize that God acts according to His nature, 
in acting upon all things according .to theirs. His own character, 
therefore, must characterize His actions, which must consequently be 
holy, just, wise, and good. 



243 , Abstract of Theology. 

3. God's action must, therefore, fully accord with the free agency of 
man. Free agency belongs to the nature of an intelligent moral crea- 
ture. He must have freedom or choice, or would not be responsible 
for his action. The very essence of responsibility consists in the 
power of contrary action, had one so pleased. God's Providential ac- 
tion cannot, therefore, be such as to destroy man's freedom of will, or 
the power of this contrary choice. 

But this does not forbid the use of inducements to any specific ac- 
tion, nor the placing of man in circumstances which would influence, or 
control his acts. Were these influences compulsory, so as to force to 
action against his will, the freedom of man would be destroyed, and 
with it responsibility. But, wherever they are only persuasive, so as 
to lead him to delight in, or to choose a specific course of action, 
through his own good pleasure, liberty is preserved, and man is ac- 
countable for his choice. The Providential influences of God are of 
this nature only. Experience so teaches, and the Scriptures so de- 
clares. Man is conscious, at every moment, that he could have chosen 
differently, and acted differently, and that his act was the outcome of 
his own good pleasure. We could have no stronger proof that God 
has Providentially acted in accordance only with our nature, except 
the word of God Himself. This testimony is added, when He not only 
ascribes our sinful acts, to our own will, but deolares that He holds 
man responsible, and will punish him for them. 

4. God may, however, originate action in man, by producing some 
such change as is the result of the exercise of direct power. The 
man may be conscious of this fact, and may feel assured that this 
change is not due to himself. In. other ways, also, God may directly 
introduce controlling influences which forcibly originate new purposes 
in man, and so direct his will, that it finds that which is pleasing to 
itself far different from the past. But this action of God is of the 
nature of creative acts, and not of Providential. The Scripture so 
speaks of them, and it may be doubted whether they belong to the 
realm of Providence. Thus the words "creation," and "creature," are 
constantly applied to those who are vitally connected with Christ, be- 
cause of the new heart which God has given, and of their renewal in 
the image of God. 

But whether these acts are to be regarded as creative only, or as 
Providential also, it is evident that in them the restrictions, arising 
from His nature, as to creative acts, appear. The compulsion is to- 
wards holiness, not towards sin. The new heart is one fitted for God's 
service, and it loves Him, and desires to obey His statutes. 



Abstract of Theology. 244 

He could not change a heart of holiness to one of sin, without its own 
voluntary action, any more than He could create a sinful being. He 
cannot directly tempt to sin, any more than He could make a man 
with original sin. His own righteous and holy nature is the guar- 
anty of this, and forbids that He should act otherwise. 

5. We are thus led to perceive what is the method of God's 
Providential action as to the sins of men, and what are His relations 
to them. 

One question, as to His connection with sin, no man can answer; 
namely, why He has allowed its existence at all. We can have no 
doubt that He could have prevented it. He can do anything not 
contrary to His own nature ; and in that nature can be found no 
necessity for its existence. We can see many ends which He has had 
in. view in allowing it in His universe. But, with all this, with our 
present knowledge of His will, we are compelled to confess that 'we 
cannot tell why He saw that it was better to admit, than to exclude it. 

On the other hand, however, no reason can be justly given why He 
should not have done so when He so purposed. There is nothing in 
its existence which makes Him its author, or shows any unholy action 
on His part in its introduction. Nor is there any evidence of any 
lack of power to prevent its origination, nor of any want of benevolent 
love to His creatures in permitting it. 

Of the origin of sin in the universe our information is very meagre. 
We have already seen this as to the fall of angels. That of man, to 
be hereafter considered, gives us little information beyond a few facts. 
,But, even in these brief statements, we are taught explicitly that sin is 
.-not due to any creative act of God, but that it came into existence 
entirely under His Providential government. The dealings of God 
with it, at present under that Providence, show the truth of the above 
statements. The Scripture and our own experience are the sources 
of our information. From these we learn : 

(1) That sin exists only in accordance with the purpose of God. 
Had He not seen fit it could never have appeared in the Universe. 
Its presence proceeds from no necessity of His nature, nor from any 
antagonistic power which He could not resist. 

: (2) It cannot occur at any time, nor in any form without His per- 
mission. While He does not actively originate it, He holds such 
absolute control, over it, that no single event, in connection with it, 
can take place without, His permission. 



245 Abstract of Theology. 

(3) It cannot attain any end, however naturally operative towards 
it, which He has not designed shall be attained. 

(4) It cannot go any farther than the limits He has assigned. 

(5) Through it He works out His own righteous purposes, and not 
the sinful designs of those who are comm.itting the sin which He thus 
overrules. 

(6) In any one act, the ends of Himself and of the sinner may 
greatly differ. 

(7) Likewise, the same act may be sinful in the sinner, and not 
sinful in God. This is due to the difference of relations borne to 
persons and things by God and man. God has supreme control over 
life, and property. Man has not. God may take away life or 
property by the hand of the assassin or the thief. He only does what 
it is His right to do. But it is sin in the man because He has not the 
right to do either of these things. 

(8) The sinful actions of men may be sinful, either from the mo- 
tives which prompt them, the ends in view, or the means by which 
they are accomplished. God may concur in such acts, from motives, 
with ends, and in the use of means which are altogether most holy. 

(9) The concurrence of God with the sinner is limited to the sup- 
port of the natural faculties ; in which support there is neither sin 
nor innocence ; sin consisting not in their use, but in the intention 
with which they are used, and the object sought by that use. 

(10) The concurrence of God according to the regularity of general 
laws seems eminently desirable. If whenever man acted virtuously, 
his powers of action were sustained, but not so, when acting other- 
wise, there would really be no free agency in man ; for he would not 
have the power of contrary choice and action. On the other hand 
there would no longer be such regular action of the Universe as seems 
necessary for the happiness and comfort of mankind. The action of 
nature would every day be suspended in thousands of instances, and 
confusion would everywhere exist. 

IV. Distinctions in Providence. 

There have been several distinctions made as to the Providence 
of God. 

1. The most common is that of General, Common, or Universal 
Providence, and Special, Singular or Particular Providence. By 



Abstract of Theology. 246 

general Providence is meant the general care which God takes of the 
Universe, and all it contains, in preserving, and upholding it under 
the general administration of the laws He has given it. By special 
Providence is meant the minute care by which some events are sup- 
posed to take place immediately under His supervision, or by His 
direct Providential action. 

It is unquestionally true that the acts of Providence extend to 
minute objects, and specially marked events. But this is no reason 
for making this distinction, which would seem to imply an indifferent 
careless Providence about all things else. The truth is that Provi- 
dence is of such a nature as to reach every natural event by the 
operation of general laws. It is a marked proof of the wisdom of 
God, that He can so direct all the affairs, of the Universe that, without 
need of special action, He can accomplish all the events He chooses. 
All Providence, therefore, is general, because operated through 
general laws. It is also special, because every individual event comes 
to pass under God's own inspection, and through His own will and 
work. 

"A general and a special Providence," says Dr. A. A. Hodge, "can- 
not be two different modes of divine operation. The same Provi- 
dential administration is necessarily at the same time general and 
special for the same reason, because it reaches without exception 
equally to every event and creature in the world. A General Pro- 
vidence is special because it secures general results by the control of 
every event, great and small, leading to that result. A Special 
Providence is general because it specially controls all individual 
beings and actions in the Universe. All events are so related together 
as a concatenated system of causes, and effects, and conditions, that a 
general Providence that is not at the same time special is as incon- 
ceivable as a whole which has no parts, or as a chain which has no 
links." [Outlines of Theology p. 266.] 

2. A second distinction is into ordinary, and extraordinary Prov- 
idences. By the ordinary are meant those acts which, according to 
general law, commonly occur in every day life, and which are supposed 
to display no extraordinary action, or purpose. By the extraordinary 
are meant any acts, such as miracles, or prophecies, which are not 
naturally to be expected, and are due to extraordinary divine inter- 
vention. 

3. Another distinction is into mediate and immediate. This is 
similar to the last except that this looks at Providence from the agency 
of the divine act, whether done directly and without means, or me- 



247 Abstract of Theology. 

diately by means. The other viewed these acts according to their 
frequency and the impression thus produced by evident divine 
interposition. 

4. A fourth distinction is into physical or real, and spiritual or 
moral. The former regards Providence as exercised about natural 
objects or things, the latter about persons^ especially in their moral 
and spiritual relations. 

V. The unequal distribution of good and evil. 

The most serious objection to the doctrine of Divine Providence is 
deduced from the unequal distribution of good and evil in the world. 
Blessings are not apparently bestowed proportionately upon the good, 
and afflictions upon the wicked. It has been claimed that this is an 
evidence that God does not watch over and govern the world. Dr. J. 
Pye Smith ably answers this objection. [See his First Lines pp. 
162 — 164.] The following is an abstract of his argument. 

1. "A man who would reason fairly cannot but, on the very thres- 
hold of this argument, ' attend to the sinful condition of the whole 
human race. The sin of man " 

(1) " Merits the experience of penal evils, in all their variety." 

(2) "This sin is the cause and occasion, sometimes directly, at other 
times more indirectly and remotely, of human sufferings. " 

2. "Upon the broad scale of observation and history, many exam- 
ples of retribution are to be observed." 

3. "This distribution of good and evil is by no means sb unequal 
as appears to superficial observation." 

4. "Even good men are the chief occasions of their own sufferings." 

5. "Their sufferings are made in the highest degree beneficial to 
them ; as means of religious improvement. (Heb. 12 ; 4 — 11.)" 

6. ''The piety, virtue, and good moral conduct of upright persons, 
procure to them, in the ordinary course of affairs, a considerable meas- 
ure of esteem, regard, kindness, and service from their fellow men ; 
and consequently a much higher degree of personal and social enjoy- 
ment than they would have, if they were not religious characters." 

7. "The objects which men commonly regard as good in themselves 
and for their own sakes, are in reality not so. They are good only as 
they are used; only when they are made the means of moral im- 
provement." 



Abstract of Theology. 248 

8. "We are very far from being competent judges of the state of 
the heart, and the degree of real holiness possessed by the subjective 
individuals : but we know enough to be assured that the reality in 
these important matters is far from being in accordance with the 
obvious and superficial appearance. It cannot be doubted that, in 
many instances, men acquire credit with the public for great religious 
excellence which is by no means justly imputed, as to either the 
degree or the sincerity of it ; and that deep and humble piety exists 
in some instances where extraordinary and unfavorable circumstances 
surround its possessors as with a dark cloud." 

9. "The afflictions of real Christians are instruments of the greatest 
internal blessings. They are also means of benefit to others, by their 
exhibition of the most edifying examples, and by the weight which 
instruction and admonition thus receive." 

10. "But we cannot judge of this question with any approach to 
completeness, without bringing into the account the future state. The 
present state is but the imperfect and preparatory condition of our 
existence, r.he period during which all must be done that is to fit us 
for eternity. All temporal things are as nothing, compared with this 
great issue of all our labours and trials." 



Abstract of Theology. 250 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE XXII. 



The Fall of Man. 

The lecture on the creation of Man presented him in all the sinless 
perfection with which God can create an intellectual and moral 
spiritual being. It was there shown that this consisted, as the Scrip- 
tures declare, not merely in an innocent sinlessness, which left him 
without taint or tendency to sin, but in original righteousness, which 
comprised a love of holiness and natural choice of good rather than 
of evil. 

The excellence of such a nature is seen in the difficulty which men 
have had in explaining the possibility of its fall. The value of this 
fact, as testimony to the goodness of God, is not to be overlooked. 
To escape this difficulty, some have even maintained that there was 
originally in man a mere condition of equilibrium, in which it was 
as easy to choose the wrong as the right. Nor can it be shown that, 
if this had been true, a trial upon probation, in which was given a 
choice of good and evil with consequent reward and punishment, 
would have been unjust to man, or derogatory to the character of 
God. But the plain teaching of Scripture is that man was not 
created in perfect equilibrium; but with a holy nature, the whole 
tendency of w'hich was naturally towards the good and the holy. In 
thus fitting him for his trial, God is seen, by special endowment, to 
have given him most graciously all the powers possible to fit him for 
a wise choice, in any instance in which he should be left to act accord- 
ing to his good pleasure. 



251 Abstract of Theology. 

i. how could man fall ? 

In reply to the question how a being thus endowed could fall, the 
following suggestions may be made. While they may not be entirely 
satisfactory, they must be recognized as at least constituting a possible 
explanation of a subject so completely environed with difficulties. 

1. The excellent nature thus bestowed was after all only that of 
a mere creature. The perfection, as such, could be only natural and 
bestowed, not essential and inalienable. Therefore, unless preserved 
by the purpose and acts of God it might be lost. 

2. It was that of a creature, the excellence of whose action con- 
sisted in always choosing the right and rejecting the wrong; but which 
had the power, should the inclination arise, of making and pursuing a 
contrary choice. No natural or compulsory necessity existed to 
prevent such choice. The right would only be chosen, so long as 
the motive to do so should be the prevailing one. While, therefore, 
the nature wholly inclined to the right would naturally and certainly 
act in that direction; if that nature could be so affected as to incline 
towards the wrong, there would be no hindrance to its sinful action. 

3. Under such circumstances, against any gross violation of the 
law of God, or sinful rebellion against Him, the heart would so 
naturally revolt as that the beginning of sin in this direction would 
be almost impossible. But, if any desire should be awakened, in itself 
sinless when duly exercised, that desire might so increase as ultimately 
to acquire sufficient strength to overcome the right tendency of the 
nature, and to lead finally by undue exercise to wrong action for its 
gratification. 

4. The foundation for such desire might be found in the wish to 
gratify the lower appetites, or to attain higher exercise of the intel- 
lectual faculties. 

5. The cause of its springing up would naturally be the denial of 
some means by which it would appear that either or both of these 
wishes could be attained. This accords with the principle stated by 
the Apostle Paul. "I had not known lust except the law had said 
thou shalt not covet." Rom. 7:7. 

6. The natural result would be, not immediately to determine to 
do the wrong, but to question the justice with which the act was 
forbidden. 

7. This doubt of God would so lead the nature towards sin that 
the act would then be done from the motive arising from the desire 
of gratifying either the sensual or the spiritual appetite. 



Abstract of Theology. 252 

ii. how did man fall ? 

We have the account of the fall in Glen. 3:1 — 7. The statement is 
very brief yet complete. This is a proof of its inspiration; which also 
appears from its accurate agreement with the best thoughts men have 
been able to attain as to how such an event could take place. 

The narrative shows that the attack upon man had to be made in 
a most subtle manner. The fortress of "Mansoul" was not easily to be 
breached. 

1. We have the occasion; in God's forbidding man to eat of the fruit 
of a certain tree, called "the tree of the knowledge of good and 
evil." Gen. 2:17. 

2. We have that love of wisdom, natural and proper in an intelli- 
gent being, excited by the idea that through its increase would be 
given elevation in the scale of existence. 

3 Led by this desire to think of its possible gratification, the 
very name of the tree whose fruit was forbidden seemed to confirm 
the language of the tempter. 

4. The good thus attainable appeared to be one which God would 
so naturally wish to bestow, that it created doubt whether God could 
really have meant to forbid its use, and particularly whether He 
would fulfil His threats, or even intended them to be effective to 
prevent the proposed action. 

5. Then followed the result, the statement of which shows the 
processes through which the mind of the woman had gone ; "when 
the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was plea- 
sant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took 
of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with 
her, and he did eat." Gen. 3:6. 

The vScriptures say but little of the difference between Adam and 
Eve in this transaction. The narrative of Genesis simply relates that 
the woman was the first tempted, and the first to sin, and that through 
her the fruit was given to the man. The only other allusion is that 
in which Paul states that "Adam was not deceived, but the woman 
being deceived was in the transgression." 1 Tim. 2:14. This may 
mean only that the woman was tempted by Satan, while the man was 
not ; or that Eve believed the tempter, and did not perceive the con- 
sequences of transgression, while Adam acted in full knowledge of 
them. 



253 Abstract of Theology.. 

As to the reality of an external agent in the temptation, there has 
been no little dispute. . Some have held that there was no actor, but 
that the temptation was the result merely of the emotions, and desires 
of the woman. But the Scriptures say distinctly that there was a ser- 
pent present, and active. Temptation through a serpent might have 
occurred in several ways. 

1. A serpent might innocently, and alone have been the occasion 
of the suggestion of the thoughts to Eve. 

2. Some evil being might have accompanied the innocent acts of 
the serpent to suggest to her mind the thoughts by which he would 
tempt her to sin. 

3. This evil Spirit, in the form of a serpent, or taking possession 
of an actual serpent, might have used and uttered the language, or 
suggested the thoughts attributed to him in the narrative. 

4. A fourth explanation has been suggested, and is somewhat 
advocated by Turner in his Commentary on Genesis, p. 187. This 
supposes that the devil was the only agent, and that all reference to 
the serpent is allegorical. 

The Scriptures seem to accord more nearly with the third of these 
theories. There appears to be no valid objection to the acceptance 
of this their most obvious import. 

(1) It is surely not inconsistent with the power ascribed to Satan 
that he should thus enter the form of a creature already existent, or 
even assume the appearance of such a creature. "For even Satan 
fashioneth himself into an angel of light." 2 Cor. 11:14. [Canter- 
bury Revision.] The temptation of Jesus shows that he can assume 
bodily form. Mere mental suggestion cannot account for all that then 
occurred. It is necessary to believe that he appeared in bodily form 
to our Lord and addressed him in words uttered with the voice. This 
is involved in the offer recorded in Luke 4:7. "If thou therefore wilt 
worship me all shall be thine." 

(2) The force of the objection from the curse against the serpent, 
as against an innocent animal, vanishes with the light thrown by 
modern science upon creation. This shows that the serpent has al- 
ways had its present form. The curse, therefore, so far as uttered 
against the animal is merely equivalent to an assertion of the con- 
tinuance of what had always been, and only places before man a 
constant and dreaded memorial of the first sin. This is consistent with 
God's method of cursing and blessing as seen in the bow of Noah, Gen. 
9:8 — 17, and Jacob's language as to Simeon and Levi in Gen. 49:5 — 7. 



Abstract of Theology. 254 

This third theory is favoured by the following facts. 

(1) The title serpent and dragon is given elsewhere in Scripture 
to Satan. See Rev. 12:3. 4. 12. 13. 16. 17; Rev. 13:4. 14, especially 
Rev. 12:9 — "that old serpent called the Devil and Satan." — See also 
Matt. 3:7, where John calls the Pharisees a "generation of vipers," 
and compare it with John 8:44, our Lord's language: "Ye are of your 
father the devil." 

(2) The narrative in Genesis demands more than mental sug- 
gestion through a mere animal. 

(a) A character of special subtilty is ascribed to the serpent, which 
is not appropriately to be said of a mere animal of this kind. 

(b) The thoughts suggested could not have originated in the 
mind of the woman alone, nor in that of the woman through any mere 
act of the serpent. These are, (aa) That death would not ensue, 
(bb) That the knowledge of good and evil would elevate them to be 
Gods (mighty ones.) 

(3) The subsequent references in the Scriptures to this transaction 
show that this was the beginning of the great struggle of Satan for the 
ruin of man, which was to end in his destruction by the man Christ 
Jesus, the seed of the woman. 

4. "In the New Testament it is both directly asserted, and in 
various forms assumed, that Satan seduced our first parents into sin. 
In Rev. 12:9, it is said, "The great dragon was cast out, that old 
serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole 
world." And in 20:2, "He laid hold on the dragon, that old Serpent, 
which is the Devil and Satan." In 2 Cor. 11.3, Paul says, "I fear lest 
* * * * ag j. j^ ser p en t beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so also 
your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." 
But that by the serpent he understood Satan, is plain from v. 14 
where he speaks of Satan as the great deceiver; and what is said in 
Rom. 16:20, "The God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet," 
is an obvious allusion to Gen. 3:16. In John 8:44, our Lord calls the 
Devil a murderer from the beginning, and the father of lies, because 
through him sin and death were introduced into the world." 
[Hodge's Syst. Theol. vol. 2 p. 128.] 

III. This, a fall under the Covenant of Works. 

The fall of Man occurred, when on probation, under the Covenant 
of works. 



255 Abstract of Theology. 

Theologians are accustomed to speak of two especial covenants, the 
one of works, the other of grace. These do not embrace all the co- 
venants between God and man, which indeed are very numerous. The 
most prominent others mentioned in the Scriptures are that with 
Noah, Gen. 9:11—15; with Abraham, Gen. 17:2—14; (repeated to 
Isaac, Gen. 26:2—5; and to Jacob, Gen. 28:13—15;) with Israel in 
giving the law, Ex. 24:7; Deut. 5:2. 3; with Moses and Israel, Ex. 34:27;* 
with David, 2 Sam. 7:12—16; with Solomon, 2 Chron. 7:12—22; and 
that of Nehemiah and the Israelites with God, Neh. 9:38, to 10:39. 
The two covenants, of works and grace, are spoken of in Gal. 4:22 — 31, 
and are called "the two covenants" in verse 24. That of grace is the 
covenant of redemption made by God with His elect, or more properly 
with Christ, the second Adam, as their representative. That of works 
is the covenant of the law which is one between God and all man- 
kind through the first Adam, their natural head and appropriate and 
appointed representative. 

[Upon the Scripture use of the word covenant, see Hodge's Out- 
lines of Theology, pp. 309 and 367—369.] 

A covenant is an agreement between two or more parties by which 
any one or more things are to be done under the sanctions of rewards 
and penalties. 

This is the ideal form of a covenant. Some parts of it may be 
wanting, and still it may be a covenant. Thus there may be penal- 
ties and no reward, or reward and no penalties. Also, the agreement 
may arise, not from mutual consultation, but from a command given 
and accepted. This may take place at the time it is given, and with 
the person to whom it is spoken, or the command may be given, or 
promise made, to be accepted and acted upon by any who may at any 
time choose. Thus, between a government and its responsible sub- 
jects, law becomes a covenant. Rewards also are promised, as for the 
killing of dangerous or destructive animals, or for the capture of 
criminals ; or threats are uttered, for violation of the rights of others, 
either as to life, liberty, or property. 

These preliminary statements may remove the difficulties sometimes 
felt as to the existence of a covenant of works. Law prescribed by 
God as lawgiver is admitted to exist together with its sanctions and 
penalties; and, as in human law, so here, no excuse can be made of 
want of formal agreement; because of the natural obligation to obey. 

These facts are, however, more fully applicable to the covenant of 
works, regarded as the general law of obtaining and maintaining spirit- 



Abstract of Theology. . 256 

ual life, given to all mankind, and still held forth to them, than to the 
transactions under that covenant connected with Adam's fall. 
In this latter the elements of a covenant more distinctly appear. 

1. There are here the two parties to a covenant, God and man; 
the one prescribing what was to be done, or left undone ; the other 
receiving the command to do or not to do it. 

If it be objected to the parties, that God enjoined an act through 
His sovereign and supreme power and dominion, to which man dared 
not object; the sufficient reply is that God was no more sovereign Lord 
than man was willing subject. The holy constitution of his nature, 
rendered his ready acceptance absolutely certain. 

2. Here also we find the subject matter of a covenant; the forbid- 
ing under penalty the eating of a certain fruit. That which made 
this properly a part of the covenant, was that man knew that he was 
commanded not to eat; that he recognized God's right to command, 
and his duty to obey; that he had a natural inclination towards obe- 
dience ; and that, accepting the command of God, he proceeded to 
submit himself to it. 

Both the knowledge and assent of man, however, may be absent 
from the general covenant of works, where it appears under the especial 
form of law, or duty, whenever that absence is the result of man's sin- 
fulness. Their presence, however, in an innocent being is essential to 
responsibility. That very innocence, however, from the holiness of 
the creature's nature, secures such assent to these things, where he is 
present, as make the more formal covenant. 

3. The third element of the covenant is the penalty, death, 
the meaning of which will be hereafter examined. The threat of 
God "thou shalt surely die", (Gen. 2:17), was known not only to 
Adam, but to the woman also as appears from her conversation with 
the serpent. Gen. 3:1-3. 

4. The promises made or applied constitute a fourth element. 
It is questioned whether promises were added to the covenant. None 
appear in the narrative. None were necessary to make this a cov- 
enant. None are necessarily involved except such as are implied as 
attendant upon the result of obedience. These, therefore, may be 
first stated as being thus implied, and such considerations may be 
added as, from our further information, suggest that others were 
actually expressed. 

Those implied are : 

(1.) Continuance of God's favour, which having been bestowed on 



257 Abstract of Theology. 

them as innocent creatures, would continue to be shown if they should 
not disobey His commands. 

(2.) Continuance of their happy, holy, condition, until, by their 
own act they should forfeit it. 

(3.) Continuance, therefore, unless in like manner forfeited, of the 
immortality natural to their souls ; and, as to their bodies, contin- 
uance of their then existent condition ; or, if any change should 
occur, a change into higher forms, bestowed for their greater happi- 
ness. 

(4.) To this may be added that their children, so long as this 
state of innocence should continue, would be born with like innocent 
and holy natures. 

These results of obedience are implied, 

(1.) In the benevolent holiness and justice of God's nature. Even 
if never stated to Adam as promises, they would be naturally inferred 
by him from his knowledge of God. 

(2.) They are also implied in the very threat against disobedience, 
if, as we shall hereafter see, that threat involved not merely natural 
death, but also, and chiefly that absence of God's favour and com- 
munion, which is the death of the soul. 

If death would follow disobedience, then life ought to follow obedi- 
ence — life in all the opposites to death, and, therefore, life both of the 
body and the soul. 

It would seem, therefore, that there ought to be no question that 
these blessings were believed by Adam to have been made dependent 
upon his obedience to God's commands. 

The fact that life was thus promised "is clearly taught in other pas- 
sages of Scripture. Lev. 18:5; Neh. 9;29 ; Matt. 19:16.17 ; Gal. 3:12; 
Rom. 10:5." [Hodge's Outlines, p. 311.] 

There are three further points of inquiry as to the probation upon 
which Adam was thus placed. 

1. How long was the probation to last if they continued innocent? 

2. Was there to be but this one test of obedience? 

3. Was confirmation in holiness, and happiness, promised our first 
parents, in any way, as a reward of obedience? 

We may answer these by saying that, while we have no means of 
knowing how long man was to be tried under this particular form of 
covenant, it is more than probable that there was to be but the one 
form of test, and that, after a period which could not be very long, 
confirmation in spiritual life was to be attained if man continued 
obedient. 



Abstract of Theology. 258 

In favour of but one form of test is: 

1. The fact that the simple purpose was to test man's confidence 
in God, and obedience to His will. So long as a sufficient test was 
presented, no multiplication of them was necessary. 

2. God knew whether his purpose was to allow man to fall, or not, 
and knowing this, knew what test would be sufficient. He needed to 
try man, not to show to Himself but to others what man would do. 

3. In a case, like that of Job, when His purpose is to exhibit his 
grace in His creature, he may allow many tests, one after another, 
but, when the creature will finally fall, it is probable that He would 
not allow the hopes of His creature to be raised after successive 
trials, to result only in final and more embittered disappointment. 

As to confirmation in spiritual life as resulting from continuance in 
holy obedience, it may be remarked that 

1. The fact that God selected this one thing to forbid, and granted 
indulgence in all others, indicates that it was for a special test. That 
test would naturally be accompanied by a promise as well as by a 
threat. 

2. A further evidence of such a promise, as well as of its nature, 
is to be found in the statements about the tree of life. Its suggestive 
name, its prominent position "in the midst of the garden," Gen. 2:9, 
its conspicuous character, such that it is one of the only two mentioned, 
its power of confirmation in life, which Gen. 3:22 shows to have been 
known to Adam — all of these indicate that the idea, not only of life, 
but of confirmation in life, had been conveyed to Adam. 

3. The fact of the fall shows that God's purpose in causing that 
tree to grow there, was not to use it in the confirmation of Adam, for 
no such confirmation was to occur. We must find its use, therefore, in 
something prior to the fall. But in what, save to place constantly 
before Adam the promise of confirmed spiritual life when the period 
of this probation had been passed. 

4. The necessity of his removal from the garden shows that some 
promise of confirmation in immortality had been attached to this 
tree, to be fulfilled when man should be permitted to partake of it. 
Gen. 3:22. 

Three objections have been made to this transaction. 
1. That it made so much, even all, to depend upon a single act. 
But this arises (1) from the nature of sin as guilt demanding pun- 
ishment for any one, even the least, transgression, and as corruption, 



259 Abstract of Theology. 

which renders incapable of subsequent acts of holiness ; and (2) from 
the nature of God's justice, which cannot pardon sin unatoned for. 
Any one sin must, therefore, necessarily terminate probation. 

2. That the test was in so unimportant a matter as the eating of 
a piece of fruit. But the more trifling the prohibition the easier was 
the act of obedience, and the more flagrant that of disobedience. 

3. That the precept was a positive, and not a moral injunction. 

But this very fact made it a better test of obedience, (a) as testing 
the whole man; not his love of holiness only, nor his reverence for God, 
nor the tendencies of his holy nature, nor those of his will only; but all; 
(b) as making a well and sharply defined test of his confidence, and 
obedience towards God; and (c) as plainly, manifesting to the guilty 
the sin they had committed, and the condition into which they had 
brought themselves. 



Abstract of Theology. 260 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE XXIII 



Effects of Adam's Sin. 

The immediate effects of Adam's sin, as indicated in the narrative in 
Genesis, were (1) shame, or fear of God's presence, and (2) making excuse 
for his sin and casting the 'blame upon the woman and his maker. 
Gen. 3:7—13. 

The immediate curse uttered against the woman was (1) danger to 
her and her seed from the serpent and his seed, (2) multiplied pain 
and sorrow in childbirth, and (3) a condition of subservience to her 
husband. Gen. 3:15—16. 

That against the man was (1) that thorns and thistles should hinder 
the cultivation of the ground, (2) that by hard labour in the sweat of 
his brow should he eat his bread, and (3) a positive declaration of the 
return of the man to the dust whence he had been taken. Gen. 3:17 — 19. 

The evils thus threatened have not been confined to Adam and 
Eve, but have fallen also upon all their posterity. Whatever may be 
the connection between Adam and that posterity, it is generally 
admitted that the latter share with him all these evils. 

In seeking then into the effects of Adam's sin we shall find them 
in connection with the evil condition of his posterity, as well as 
himself. 

The curses uttered in the garden are not to be taken as exhaustive 
of the curse threatened. They are such only as were immediately 
suggested by the peculiar attendant circumstances of Adam's sin, and 
are to be regarded merely as examples of its evil effects. Still even 
they have not been confined to Adam, but have come equally upon 
the race at large. 



261 Abstract of Theology. 

All the evil effects of Adam's sin are comprised under the word 
"death." This was the threatened penalty. But what is meant by it ? 

I. Natural death is included. By this is meant the separation of 
the soul and the body, and the consequent decay of the body. 

1. It has been objected that this is not a result of Adam's sin, 
because the very nature of the body (dust) made it necessary that it 
should return to dust. 

To this it may be replied : 

(1) That it is not certain that there were in man's body before his 
sin any elements of decay which would naturally lead to separation 
from the soul and to corruption. 

(2) But, even if we admit that the body is naturally mortal and 
liable to corruption, it does not follow that had man not sinned he 
would have died. God might have continued forever to preserve his 
powers unimpaired, either by direct preservation, or by some remedial 
means. Some think, not without reason, that this would have been 
done through the tree of life. 

(3) The objection overlooks the fact that, from the nature of God's 
foreknowledge and purpose, things in themselves natural are made the 
punishments of others with which they are associated, and in like 
manner is it also with blessings. The whole narrative of the fall is 
full of examples of this principle. Of this kind is the serpent's 
curse, "upon thy belly shalt thou go and dust shalt thou eat all the 
days of thy life," Gen. 3:14; of this also that connected with the na- 
tural injury which men and serpents would inflict on each other, Gen. 
3:15; that of the rule of the husband over the wife, Gen. 3:17; and that 
of the thorns and thistles in the ground and the sweat and the labour 
for the means of life, Gen 3:18.19. 

2. A second objection against regarding natural death as part of 
the penalty is that the threatened penalty was a death which should 
occur on the very day the fruit should be eaten. 

(1) This might be an objection if it were claimed that the penalty 
of natural death was the only penalty, or if it could be shown that 
the death thus threatened was so exclusive as to forbid that natural 
death should be in any way associated with it. 

(2) It is even doubtful whether the corrupt tendency to death 
and its beginnings may not be ascribed to the very hour of Adam's 
sin. If that sin removed all hope of God's counteracting the natural 
mortality, this would be so; whether it was to be counteracted, as Lange 
quotes Knobel as supposing [Comm. on Genesis, p. 239], "through the 
tree of life," or by some other means. It would also be true, if as 






Abstract of Theology. 262 

Lange thinks, the threatened penalty "death, here corresponding 
to the biblical conception of death, must be taken primarily to mean 
moral death, which goes out of the soul or heart, and, through the 
soul-life, gradually fastens itself upon the physical organism." 
Comm. on Gen., p. 207. 

(3) ■' It may also be true, even without this, if there be this ad- 
ditional and higher meaning of death as the primary one, and this 
gradual tendency towards decay accompanying it, though not 
caused by it. 

In favour of the idea that natural death is included in the penalty, 
there is : 

1. The probability that while spiritual death does come upon 
man, the outward event, the name of which is used to express this 
evil result in the soul, would itself also constitute a part of that which 
is indicated by its name. 

Hence it is that, to one who does not carefully study the Scripture 
statements, the most obvious idea is that the death threatened was 
chiefly natural death. 

2. This probability is rendered certain by the specific curse 
uttered in the garden after the transgression "Dust thou art and unto 
dust shalt chou return." Gen. 3:19. 

3. It is confirmed by other passages of Scripture. Lange, Gen. p. 
239, thinks that the teaching of the 90th Psalm is undoubtedly that 
death belongs solely to the punishment of sin. But whether so, or not, 
it is unquestionably the teaching of Romans 5:12 — 14; also of 1. Cor. 
15:21.22.53.56. [See some valuable remarks on this point in Edwards' 
Works, vol. 2, p. 373.] 

II. Spiritual death was also an effect of Adam's sin. Our inquiry 
into natural death as a penalty leads us to look for some other, and 
higher evil, as resulting from sin. It must be something which oc- 
curred at the very time of eating, which affected that part of man that 
was naturally immortal, and which was also connected with that part 
with which conscious personality is inseparably associated. 

1. It must therefore be the death of the soul. 

The Scriptures present this in several aspects, showing it in each 
case not only by statements of what it is, but by contrasting it with 
the life of the soul. It is presented as (1) Alienation from God. 
(2) Loss of God's favour. (3) Loss of acceptance with Him. 

It is contrasted with life in many passages, as Lev. 18:5 ; Deut. 8:3 ; 
30:15—19; Ps. 119:17.77.116 ; Matt. 4:4 ; John 5:24. 



263 Abstract of Theology. 

That this death has come upon mankind is evident from the fact 
that the Scriptures speak of man, in his fallen state, as being "without 
God in the world," Eph. 2:12 ; as "alienated from the life of God," 
Eph. 4:18. It says that "all have sinned and come short of the glory 
of God," Rom. 3:23. Also that "the wicked and him that loveth 
violence his soul hateth," Ps. 11:5. God is said to be "angry with the 
wicked every day," Ps. 7:11. "His wrath is revealed from heaven 
against all unrighteousness and ungodliness of men," Rom. 1:18. It 
is not only said that he who believes not is condemned already; but that 
the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:18. 36. 

It is also evident from the work of Christ, which was to reconcile 
man to God, and propitiate his good will. Hence Christ speaks of 
himself as giving living water. We are said to live in Christ. 

2. This spiritual death was not only the death of the soul, as seen 
in the various aspects of alienation, loss of God's favour and of accept- 
ance with Him, referred to above ; but it also consisted in a corrupt 
nature. The Scripture statements as to the corruption show. 

(1) Its universal extent. It is found in every man. — "There 
is no man that sinneth not," 1 Kings 8:46. "There is none that doeth 
good," Ps. 14:1 ; and this is emphasized in v. 3 by adding "no not one." 
See also Rom. 3:10 and the argument of the context. Also Ps. 53:1 — 3; 
130:3; Prov. 20=9 ; Ecc. 7:20; Isa. 53:6; 64:6; Rom. 3:23 ; 5:12.14; 
Gal. 3:22; 1 John 1:8—10; 5:19. 

To the above passages might be added arguments for the-universal- 
ity of sin from the declared necessity of regeneration in each man; 
from the direction to preach the gospel to every creature ; and the 
assertion that there is no salvation for any man except in the name 
of Christ. 

(2) Its early appearance in man's life is another proof that cor- 
ruption is the effect of Adam's sin. Certain passages of Scripture are 
supposed to refer to young children as though innocent of guilt. 
These are such as Matt. 19:13—15, Mark 10:13—16 and Luke 
18:15 — 17 "of such is the kingdom of heaven." Also Matt. 18:3 
"Except ye be converted and become as little children." Also 1 Cor. 
14:20 ",be not children in understanding, howbeit in malice be ye 
children ; but in understanding be ye men." [See Gill's Body of 
Divinity I. 474.] 

But these passages do not teach freedom from corruption. On the 
other hand corruption in iearly infancy is plainly taught. "The 
wicked are estranged from the womb, they go astray as soon as they 



Abstract of Theology. 264 

be born speaking lies." Ps. 58:3. "Behold I was shapen in iniquity 
and in sin did my mother conceive me." Ps. 51=5. "Foolishness 
(wickedness) is bound in the heart of a child." Prov. 22=15. 

(3) The fact of this corruption. Before the flood it is said; "And God 
saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth and that every 
imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." 
Gen. 6:5. "Every one of them is gone back, they are altogether become 
filthy," Ps. 53:3; see also Ecc. 8:11 ; Matt. 15:19 ; Rom. 1st chapter 
at length, as to the heathen, in connection with Paul's question, Rom. 
3:9. Similar descriptions appear in Isa. 59:3 — 14 ; in Gal. 5:19 — 21 ; 
Titus 3=3 ; 2 Pet. 2:13—18. 

(4) "This corruption extends to every affection of the heart and 
mind", says Mr. Goodwin in the Lime St. Lectures, p. 128. "The soul 
is corrupted with all its faculties ; the mind with darkness and ignor- 
ance, Eph. 5:3 ; being subject to the sensitive part, and strongly prej- 
udiced against the things of God, 1 Cor. 4=24 ; the conscience with 
stupidity and insensibleness, Titus 1:15; the will with stubbornness 
and rebellion, Rom. 8=7 ; the affections are become carnal and placed 
either upon unlawful objects, or upon lawful in an unlawful manner 
or degree, Col. 3=2 ; the thoughts and imaginations are full of pride, 
and vanity, and disorder, Gen. 6=5. And, as for the body, that is be- 
come a clog, instead of being serviceable to the soul, and all its mem- 
bers and senses instruments of unrighteousness to sin, Rom. 7=19. 
It is, I say, in general, a universal deprivation of every part in man 
since the fall ; and more particularly it consists in a privation of all 
good, in an enmity to God, and the things of God, and in a propensity 
to all evil." See also Hodge, vol. 2, p. 255 and Gill s Divinity, 
vol. 1, p. 474. 

(5) This corruption has not been equally developed in all. The 
doctrine of total depravity does not mean such development. The 
Scriptures recognize degrees of wickedness as well as of hardening of 
the heart, and blinding of the mind of some. But they also represent 
that the lack of this development is due to differing circumstances 
and restraints by which some men are providentially surrounded. 

(6) This corruption does not destroy accountability or respons- 
ibility for present sins. 

(a) The Scriptures universally recognize man's liability to pun- 
ishment for all the thoughts of his mind, and the desires of his heart, 
or the emotions of his physical nature as well as for his acts. These 
are characterized by more or less of heinousness according to their 



265 Abstract of Theology. 

nature, and the circumstances under which they are committed. The 
more intense the corruption the more guilty is the man regarded. 

(b) The conscience of mankind approves these teachings of Script- 
ure. We do not excuse men because of any state of moral corruption. 
The evidence of this is seen in the immediate difference which is 
made whenever physical compulsion, or physical disease (insanity) 
leads to an act which otherwise would be regarded as sinful and 
blameworthy. 

(7) This corruption does not destroy the freedom of the will. 
This is the ground upon which men are held responsible by God and 
by human law and conscience. The condition of man is indeed such 
"that he cannot not sin," but this is due to his nature which loves sin 
and hates holiness and which prefers self to God. "When man sins 
he does so of his own choice, freely, without compulsion. 

(8) "The inability which is thus admitted", says Dr. Hodge, "is 
asserted only in reference to the things of the spirit. It is asserted 
in all the confessions above quoted, (he has been quoting various 
Protestant confessions,) that man since the fall has not only the liberty 
of choice or power of self-determination, but also is able to perform 
moral acts, good as well as evil. He can be kind and just, and fulfil 
his social duties in a manner to secure the approbation of his fellow- 
men. It is not meant that the states of mind in whioh these acts are 
performed, or the motives by which they are determined, are such as 
to meet the approbation of an infinitely holy God ; but simply that 
these acts, as to the matter of them, are prescribed by moral law. 

Theologians, as we have seen, designate the class of acts as to which 
fallen man retains his ability, as ,4 jnstit,ia civilis", "things external." 
And the class as to which his inability is asserted, is designated as 
"the things of God," "the things of the Spirit," "things connected 
with salvation." "The difference between these two classes of acts, 
although it may not be easy to state it in words, is universally recog- 
nized. There is an obvious difference between morality and religion; 
and between those religious affections of reverence and gratitude 
which all men more or less experience, and true piety. The difference 
lies in the state of mind, the motives, and the apprehension of the 
objects of these affections. It is the difference between holiness and 
mere natural feeling. What the Bible and all the Confessions of the 
churches of the Reformation assert is, that man, since the fall, cannot 
change his own heart ; he cannot regenerate his soul;' he cannot repent 
with godly sorrow, or exercise that faith which is unto salvation. 
He cannot, in short, put forth any holy exercise, or perform any act 



Abstract of Theology. 266 

in such a way a.« to merit the approbation of God. Sin cleaves to all 
he does .and from this dominion of sin he cannot free himself." 
[Hodge's Syst. Theol., vol. 2, pp. 263— 4.J 

(9) This total corruption does not involve equality of sinfulness in 
all men. On the contrary sin is increased by cherishing sinful 
thoughts ; by indulgence in sinful habits ; by throwing off the 
restraints of society ; and is affected by circumstances of birth, edu- 
cation, &c. It is also true that by natural inheritance some are 
more prone to sin than others. 

III. Eternal death is also the consequence of Adam's sin. 

1. Without any actual sentence to Eternal death, it would follow 
that the present alienated and corrupted condition of mankind would 
be forever. 

(a) Condemnation can only be removed by proof of innocence ; by 
legal justification ; or by voluntary pardon. But the justice of God for- 
bids Him to pardon sin without atonement. By the deeds of the law 
can no man be justified ; and above all, innocence can never be proved. 
Hence the Scriptures represent all men, not pardoned and justified 
through Christ, as condemned to everlasting death. 

(b) Corruption can only be removed by a cleansing of human nature 
sufficient to root out all taint of sin and to restore a holy disposition 
and habits. This is the work of the Holy Spirit in the people of 
Christ. All not thus sanctified by Him are left forever corrupt. The 
Scriptures show such to be man's condition that he cannot cleanse 
himself. 

Dr. Dagg says "The Scripture representations of men's inability are 
exceedingly strong. They are said to be, without strength, captives, 
in bondage, asleep, dead, &c. The act, by which they are delivered 
from their natural state, is called regeneration, quickening, or giving 
life, renewing, resurrection, translation, creation ; and it is directly 
ascribed to the power of God, the power that called light out of dark- 
ness, and raised up Christ from the dead." [Bagg's Manual of 
Theology, p. 171.] " 

The following Scriptures distinctly assert this corruption and 
inability. "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leper his 
spots? then may ye also do good that are accustomed to do evil." 
Jer. 13:23. So also Jno. 1:13; 3=3; Rom. 5=6 ; 7=5.21; 8=3; 9=16; 
and Eph. 2=1.5. Such being the condition of man it is seen 
to be impossible for him to be delivered by his own acts even if he 



267 Abstract of Theology. 

had the will to perform them. But for God's action, there would be 
no deliverance even if man had the will to deliver himself. . 

(3) But men have not the will to be released. This is evidenced by 
the statements of Scripture about their love of sin, and the delight they 
take therein, as specially leading to the rejection of the gospel. 
Jno. 3:19—21. 

If, therefore, the doctrine of eternal death were no more than the 
natural continuance of the alienation and corruption of men, we see, 
that in the absence of the means to remove these they must continue 
forever. 

2. But this doctrine goes farther and teaches (a) the confirmation 
of men beyond future escape in this condition of sin and misery, and 
(b) its aggravation, or at least a farther development of it, which is res- 
trained in this life, and only slightly, and in a few instances indicated. 

This is taught by showing : 1. That the day of judgment has been 
postponed and that men are in an intermediate state of probation. 
2. That at that time the wicked sha-11 be judged and their final doom 
assigned to them. 3. That that doom shall be as eternal as the bliss 
of the righteous. The strongest words of the Greek language are 
used to express the eternity of that condition. 4. That beyond that 
period there shall be no change of state, nor opportunity of redemption. 
5. That the condition of punishment, into which they will enter, is that 
of the devil and his angels ; an entirely depraved and corrupted state 
of bitter enmity to God, and to holy beings, and things; a state without 
restraints in which the soul is wholly given up to sin. The 1st Chap- 
ter of Romans teaches us what the removal of such restraints will 
produce. 6. Some intimation of what that state shall be is given in 
the devil-blinded, self-hardened condition attained even in this life by 
the worst of men, who, in their wilful, blasphemous, and highhanded 
opposition to God and holiness show that they are spiritually possessed 
by the devil. 



Abstract of Theology. 26S 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE XXIV. 



The Headship of Adam. 

The Scriptures teach that the fall of Adam involved also that of his 
posterity. In the covenant, under which he sinned, he acted, not 
merely as an individual man, the sole one of his kind, or one isolated 
from all others of his kind, but, as the head of the race, for his posterity 
as well as himself. The condition of mankind shows that they have 
all participated with him in the evils which resulted. The Scriptures 
teach that this is due, not merely to his natural headship, but to a 
representative, or federal headship, because of which his acts of sin 
may justly be considered as theirs, and they may be treated as though 
they had themselves done that act, each man for himself. 

In order that a proper comparison may be made between the in- 
nocent and afterwards the sinful condition of Adam, and that which 
universally is found in his descendants, it will be well to recall the 
facts as to Adam in these respects, and those also which are seen to be 
true of mankind in general. The consideration of these will prepare 
the way for that of the relation between the parties to which the pres- 
ent condition of man is due. 

I. The facts as to Adam. 

These may be briefly stated as they have already been set forth, 
and the present statement is only an epitome of that already given. 

1. Adam was created perfect ; because of which perfection he was 
not only without sin, but had a strong and controlling inclination to 
holiness, and obedience to God. Such must be the nature of every 
being that is innocent, and uncorrupted. 



269 Abstract of Theology. 

2. This nature did not make him incapable of committing sin, but 
only made it very improbable that he. would choose to do so. Such 
improbability naturally belongs to a nature whose whole inclinations 
are towards that which is good. But improbability is far from being 
impossibility. 

3. The possibility of sinning necessarily inheres in every creature 
endowed with a moral nature, and permitted freedom of choice bet- 
ween good and evil. This is no more than saying that a creature is 
fallible, because he is not God, who alone is, through His own nature, 
infallible. 

4. Adam, in the trial to which he was subjected, did fall, not ac- 
cidentally, nor ignorantly, but deliberately, knowingly, and of his 
own free will. 

5. Prior to this fall, there were exhibited in him the nature, and 
condition which belong to an innocent and holy man, and which 
must be found in any of mankind who have not been affected by his 
sin. Subsequent to it, he possessed . the nature and condition of a 
corrupt and guilty man, which likewise must appear in all of those- 
who have been affected by that sin. 

6. The result of that sin was inability to continue in the state in 
which Adam was originally created, or to return to it. 

7. This inability was not merely natural, but also penal. It was 
due to the corruption of his nature through the defiling taint of sin, 
which was a part of that threatened death, which, not confined to, nor 
chiefly consisting in the death of the body, included this corruption 
and consequent inability of the whole man, together with the loss of 
the complacent love of God, and of communion or fellowship with Him. 

II. Facts as to Adam's descendants. 

The facts as to the descendants of Adam show that they have uni- 
versally partaken of his corrupted nature, and that, not even in their 
earliest years, have any had the innocent nature, with its strong pro- 
clivities to holiness, which constituted his original condition. 

1. They are born with the corrupted nature which he acquired, 
together with all the other evils set forth as the penalties of his sin. 
This was true even of his first children, Cain and Abel, as it has been, 
also, equally true of all others, even to the present time. 

2. No one of these descendants has been able to recover the na- 
ture possessed by Adam before the fall. In each of them the same 
inability has existed which fell upon him. 



Abstract" of Theology. 270 

3. No one' has been able to escape the complete fulfilment of the 
penalty of death, in all its meanings, 'except through the work of 
Christ 

4. No other reason for this universal condition has been assigned 
than the one sin by which Adam fell, and it has, consequently, been 

l generally recognized as, in some way, the result of that one trans- 
' gression. 

5. The conscience of mankind has universally taught that this 
condition of their natures' is sinful, and as fully worthy of punishment 
as the personal transgressions which proceed from it. 

6. The Scriptures plainly assume and declare that God righteously 
punishes all men, not only for what they do, but for what they are. 
Men are indeed represented as more guilty and sinful than they know 
themselves to be, because, through the restraints with which God sur- 
rounds them, their natures have not been fully developed into all the 
sin towards which they tend. This is the argument of the first part 
of the Epistle to the Komans the turning point of which is Rom. 2:1. 
It is also illustrated in the case of Hazael. 2 Kings 8:12.13. 

7. It follows, from the facts in these last two statements, that a 
corrupt nature is to be regarded as equally sinful, and guilty, and 
liable to punishment, as 'actual transgressions. Consequently, at the 
very moment of birth, the presence and possession of such a nature 
causes even the infant sons of Adam to be born under all the penalties 
which befell their ancestor in the day of his sin. Actual transgression 
subsequently adds new guilt to guilt, already existing, but does not 
substitute a state of guilt for one of innocence. 

8. Not the judgment of God only, but that of man also, regards a 
sinful nature as deserving punishment equally with a sinful act. 
The law of man is necessarily confined to the punishment of the acts, 
because these alone give such testimony to the condition of the heart 
as man can correctly apprehend ; but the character of any act is 
regarded as alleviated, or aggravated, by the character of the actor ; 
and men are shunned, or courted as they are deemed to be good, or 
bad, without any other reference to their acts than as they testify to 
character. 

From the above points it will be seen that men, as descendants of 
Adam, are invariably born, not with his original, but with his fallen 
nature, and, more than this, not only receive that nature as a part of 
the penalty of his sin, but with it, all the other penalties inflicted 
because of that sin. It is also plain, that a condition of sinfulness is 



271 Abstract of Theology. 

regarded worthy of punishment, not only by the Scriptures, and by 
personal conviction of conscience, but by the universal sense of man- 
kind; and consequently that men may be punished for the corrupt 
nature thus inherited, although they may not have been personally 
guilty of a single transgression. This naturally leads to the inquiry 
into the nature of the connection between Adam and his posterity 
through which such sad and serious results have occurred. 

III. The Connection between Adam and his posterity. 

1. Manifestly the universal sinfulness of mankind is due to some 
kind of connection with Adam. Being thus universal, it cannot be 
accidental, nor without some controlling cause. Unless some change 
was made in human nature at large, or it became liable to new con- 
ditions, or there was a connection of the life and state of all with that 
of the one, no reason can be assigned for the fact that invariably the 
fallen condition, and not the original one is found in every man. 
Yet it is manifest that while Adam's was the first sin, and while that 
was not committed according to the tendencies of his nature, all of 
his posterity have been born with the corrupt nature which thence 
ensued, with all its tendencies and its actual development in due time, 
Into personal transgressions. 

2. This has not resulted from the mere imitation of an example; 
but is a deep rooted evil inherent in their natures. It is found there 
before they can perceive the example, much less imitate it. 

3. Such is the natural relation, borne by all men to Adam, as 
their common father, that nothing but his death before the birth of 
posterity, or some such miraculous influence as goes against nature, or 
at least acts apart from it, and is believed to have existed in the birth 
of Jesus, could have prevented all the evils which befell Adam from 
coming in like manner upon his posterity. By natural generation 
they must be born with sinful natures such as his, and must, therefore, 
be corrupt and guilty, eternally destitute of God's complacent lovte, 
and liable to natural death. 

4. While the above would follow from mere natural law, the 
Scriptures teach us that Adam was not merely the natural, but also 
the federal head of the race. This is done not only in express lan- 
guage but especially by teaching that the relation borne to Christ, our 
federal head in salvation, is similar to that borne to Adam in our sin. 

5. This shows that the mass of mankind proceeding from Adam 
by natural generation sinned in him, not consciously, but representa- 



Abstract of Theology. 272 

tively, and, therefore, are justly treated as though tbey had consciously 
sinned, because they are responsible for the act of their representative. 

6. This adds nothing to the penalty which must have been suffered 
nor to the guilt which would have accrued from natural headship ; 
for guilt is simply just liability to punishment. 

7. In each case, that of federal, or that of natural headship the 
same difficulties appear. 

(1) In each we are dealt with for an act with which we had no 
conscious connection. 

(2) In each we are made sinful, and, therefore, sinners, by that act; 
for the inherent corruption is spoken of and treated by God as sin in 
the highest degree to be ^reprobated, and punished. 

(3) In each the consequences of sin are equally beyond escape. 

If it be contended that under natural headship we could not be 
punished until we had actually sinned, it may be replied : 

(1) That this does not appear to be the fact, for at least some of 
the penalties, namely, corruption and natural death, and we believe 
all, are inflicted before actual sin. 

(2) That there is no more equity, or justice in God, or any advan- 
tage to us, but rather disadvantage, that our probation, upon which the 
infliction of these penalties depends, should have taken place in the 
weakness of infancy, and under the disadvantages of an already 
corrupted nature, rather than in the personal, and intelligent act of 
the one perfect man connected with us by natural generation. 

8. But while, under the natural headship, every evil would befall 
which could arise under the representative, or federal headship ; 
under the latter would come blessing, in the event that Adam should 
maintain his integrity, because, as represented in him, we 
should have been confirmed with him according to the gracious 
promises and power of God. 

9. It would also appear that only through the representative 
headship could blessing come in the event of the fall. Had our fall 
been through merely natural headship we can see no way for recov- 
ery. But to the fall under the federal headship of Adam corresponds 
our salvation under the federal headship of Christ. 

10. In support of the Scriptural theory, therefore, we can not only 
adduce the facts that the headship of Adam was just, and right, be- 
cause duly constituted by God, and that too in the fittest person of 
the whole race, but that it was an act of special mercy and grace, not 



273 Abstract of Theology. 

only in itself, as involving the blessing of participation in the good as 
well as the evil, but as making a way for restoration in Christ the 
second Adarn. 

IV. The Scriptures teach a federal headship. 

The Scriptures recognize both a natural and federal headship of 
Adam. The natural headship would have sufficed to account for all 
the effects of Adam's sin. The federal relationship becomes necessary, 
however, in connection with salvation through Christ. It is' on this 
account that it is more prominently set forth in the New Testament 
as the common relationship of both the first, and second Adam. The 
establishment of it as to the first Adam is, therefore, to be regarded 
as a special act of the grace of God, conferring the privileges of success 
where the evils of failure would not be increased, and preparing the 
way for the future grace in the representation in Christ. The prin- 
ciple, however, upon which it is based, is a general one of nature, and 
one constantly recognized in the Scriptures. 

1. It is natural and common for men to deal with each other on 
this principle of representation. Blessings are bestowed, and injuries 
inflicted in accordance with it. Men become heirs to the noble, or 
base characters of their ancestors, as really as to their property. The 
friendship and affection, entertained for a father, and no less the 
dislike and aversion, are renewed as to the son. A similarity is 
presumed to exist between them, which is deemed a proper basis for 
such action, until the conduct of the child shows a difference 
of nature, and, by destroying this presumption, causes him to be 
differently treated. Nor is this confined to those who are connected, 
like father and son, in direct succession. The taint of a committed 
crime soils and stains a whole family, even in its collateral branches. 
A remote relationship with the guilty one is deemed a disgrace, and 
the one thus connected realizes himself to be shunned, even if pitied, 
by those free from such misfortune. On the other hand, the most 
distant connection with one distinguished for wisdom, or virtue, for 
great deeds or for high position, is thought to be a matter of congrat- 
ulation, not alone for any supposed substantial benefits that may 
accrue, but for the simple connection itself. 

The same principle extends itself throughout all the circumstances, 
and ramifications of the life of each man. Each takes pride, or shame, 
in the place of his birth, in his early or late companions, in the com- 
munity, or state, or country in which he lives, in its progress or back- 



Abstract of Theology. 274 

wardness, in its good or bad character, in its power or weakness, in its 
knowledge or ignorance, — in short, in any; qualities of excellence, or of. 
inferiority which are attached' to anything to which he belongs. 
Every man is in some measure represented, though not of his own 
choice, perhaps by bare accident, perhaps even against his own will, 
in all the circumstances and persons which surround him. 

This principle only gains strength when connected with' a duly: 
appointed representative. The President or the King appoints an 
ambassador to a foreign court, and each citizen, though he had no 
hand in the appointment, is affected by the action of this, his repre- 
sentative. A representative to Congress is elected, against whom one 
has voted, and whose whole discharge of his duties is disapproved, and 
yet, that person is bound by these very acts of the one whom he 
wished not as his representative. 

2. The representative relation, thus seen. in mankind in general, 
is recognized in the same forms in the Scriptures as existing in man's 
life with God. 

(1) It is distinctly declared in the aspect of love and hate towards 
the children of those who love and hate him in Ex. 20:5. and is even 
more prominently brought to view in Ex. 34:7. See also Deut. 4:40; 
7:7—9; Lev. 20:5; 26:39; Nam. 14:18.33; Job 21:19; Ps. 89:29.36 ; 
109:12—16; Isa. 14:19—22; 65:6.7; Jer. 32:18; Rom. 11:28. 

(2) For the fact that different conduct on the part of the children 
shall counteract the blessing or curse which comes because of the 
parent, see Lev. 26:40—42 ; Neh. 9:2 ; Ezek. 18:10—23 ; Dan. 9:4. 
5.6.21—27; 2 Cor. 3:16. 

(3) That all of a nation suffer and are punished for the sins of 
their rulers and representatives is taught throughout the whole history 
of God's dealings with Israel. A signal instance of this was the 
punishment of all Israel because of the sins of Eli and his sons. Com- 
pare 1 Sam. 3:11 — 14 with 1 Sam. 4:10 — ; 22. Another was in the 
pestilence sent because David numbered the people. 2 Sam. 24:2 — 17. 
The punishment of all who had killed the prophets is announced by 
Christ as concentrated on that one generation. Matt. 23:34 — 39. The 
death of Christ, which had been brought about by the rulers of the 
Jews, is charged upon the people themselves. Acts 2:23 ; 3:13 — 15. 
It is charged upon the rulers themselves. Acts 5:30. 

(4) On the other hand, how often was the anger of God turned 
away, or modified by the intercessory prayers of Moses, and for the 
sake of Moses, as in the battle with the Amalekites, Ex. 17:9 — 12, and 



275 Abstract of Theology. 

when the golden calf had been made, Ex. 32:9 — 14, and in his coven- 
ant with Moses after the renewal of the tables of the law, Ex. 34:9 — 
28, also after the report of the spies, Num. 14:15 — 21, and numerous 
other instances. The case of Elijah and the woman of Zarephath is 
another illustration. Favour is shown to her because of the prophet's 
sojourn with her. 1 Kings 17:20 — 22. It was because of the grace 
that Noah found with God that he and his family were saved in the 
ark. Gen. 7:1. Abraham's prayer secured from God the promise to 
save Sodom, if it contained ten righteous ones, Gen. 18;32. God 
promised to save Jerusalem if one just man could be found, Jer. 5=1. 
These are but few of the instances which show this to be a prevalent 
principle in the divine government. 

3. The doctrine of representation was especially set forth in a 
religious aspect under the Old Testament economy in the sacrifices 
under the ceremonial law. 

These sacrifices were anticipated under some more general 
law of sacrifice which was given to mankind in general. This was 
exemplified from the earliest times. This is supposed to have been 
the source of the coats of skins with which the Lord God clothed 
Adam and his wife immediately after the fall. Gen. 3:21. Itismore 
plainly seen in the superiority of the sacrifice offered by Abel over 
that of Cain. Gen. 4:1 — 8. Noah also offered burnt offerings. Gen. 
8:20.21. Abraham also built altars to the Lord, calling upon His 
name. Gen. 12:7.8; 13:3.4.18; 21:33. The idea of the burnt offer- 
ing was familiar to Isaac, as appears from his question to his father, 
and the ram was actually there offered as a burnt offering in the stead 
of Isaac. Gen. 22:7 — 9.13. Isaac also built an altar at Beersheba and 
called upon the Lord. Gen. 26:23 — 25. Jacob did the same at 
Shalem, Gen. 33:18—20, and at Bethel, Gen. 35:7, and at Beersheba, 
Gen. 46:1. Moses also offered sacrifices before the ceremonial law 
was given. Ex. 17:15.16. We are told that this was even done by 
Jethro. Ex. 18:12. In Gen. 20:24—26, God prescribes to Moses 
that an altar to him must be of earth, or of unhewn stone, and without 
steps for its ascent. 

It is almost certain that these more ancient sacrifices taught at least 
partially the same truths as those of the ceremonial law. But the cere- 
monies attached to the latter explicitly set forth the fact of represent- 
ation, including the ideas of substitution, imputation, and sacrifice. 
These are the constituent elements of any doctrine of representation 
which releases from sin. They are fully exhibited in the representation 
of men in Christ. In that in Adam the sacrifice does not appear? 






Abstract of Theology. 276 

because his was a representation which involved guilt, and not atone- 
ment. While these sacrifices, therefore, illustrate all that is involved 
in the representation in Adam, they are properly types of that in 
Christ, by which guilt was removed, and atonement made to God 
for sin. 

(1) In them we have the sinner, and the Victim substituted for 
that sinner. The offered animal becomes his representative. What 
is due to the man is inflicted upon that substitute. The act of the 
latter thus becomes that of the former, and, upon the supposition that 
the victim is authorized and adequate, there is a full discharge of 
further penalty or obligation. 

(2) There is not only a substitution of one for another, but an actual 
transfer to this one from that other of his sins, trespasses, uncleanness, 
on whatever else unfits him for acceptance with God. After this transfer 
the man is treated as though he had never been thus defiled, and the 
victim dealt with, as though he alone had offended. This transfer is 
what is commonly known as imputation. By it the sin of Adam is 
transferred to us, or in other words so reckoned to us, or put to our 
account that we are treated as though it were ours. In like manner 
the sin of man was transferred to Christ who bore it, though he knew 
no sin personally, and he was made sin, (or a sin offering) for man, 
and was treated as though he were a sinner. On the same principle 
the righteousness of Christ is also imputed to man, who though 
personally sinful, is treated as though he were righteous. 

(3) The third element is the sacrifice, by which satisfaction is 
rendered to the broken law, and God can be just and yet justify the 
ungodly. This was shown by the death of the victim, whose life was 
thus given, through its blood, in behalf of those whom it represented, 
as was that of Christ upon the cross. 

The whole attainment of salvation through Christ was thus symbol- 
ized through these Mosaic sacrifices. The antitype as well as the type 
depends upon the principle of representation. This forms the connect- 
ing link. The Mosaic sacrifices were not offered in general, but for 
specified persons. It was not sin in the abstract that was confessed 
but the sins of special individuals. The fact of representation has 
thus been distinctly involved, in the whole religious life, set forth in 
the Scriptures. It was only through the act of a duly appointed 
representative that guilt could be removed, and salvation obtained. 






277 Abstract of Theology. 

4. The Scriptures represent this as the method by which guilt 
was incurred through Adam. This is chiefly done in the well known 
passage in the fifth chapter of Romans. The apostle is here arguing 
for the possibility of justification through the act of Christ. He does 
this by drawing a parallel between Christ and Adam, and the effects 
of Adam's sin and Christ's meritorious work. This parallel could be 
drawn only on the ground of federal representation. Only thus, could 
it be in connection with Christ, as it had been in connection with 
Adam. Christ could in no sense be a natural head of man. He could 
only be a constituted, or appointed representative head. He is thus 
everywhere set forth. So the parallel made between him and Adam 
shows that the headship of the latter was representative as well as 
natural. The same truth is also taught in 1 Cor. 15:45 — 49, not only 
in the names given of the first and second Adam, but by the contrast 
between their natures and the effects produced by each. In these 
two chapters from Romans and Corinthians we find ascribed to men, 
because of the connection with Adam, and as punishments of his sin, 
almost all the penalties, which were inflicted upon Adam in the 
threatened penalty of death. There is the all-comprising word 
"death," declared to have come by sin, and that, the sin of one man, 
Rom. 5:12 ; death, which came upon all, even over those who had not 
sinned like Adam. In what respect "not after the similitude of 
Adam's transgression" if reference be not made to the fact there was 
no personal sin, as there is none in infants ? This seems clearly sug- 
gested by the interjected expression "who is the figure of him that 
was co come;" for Adam was only a figure of Christ by virtue of this 
representative headship. "Judgment to condemnation," another 
penalty of Adam's sin is also declared to have come through one, 
v. 16.18. The death of the soul, as the opposite ot its spiritual life, is 
also asserted to have resulted from one man's offence, v. 17. The 
controlling power of this sin, whioh causes the inability to return to 
God, and serve Him, is shown by the declaration that "sin reigned 
unto death," v. 21, which is a result of the one man's disobedience 
mentioned in v. 19. If natural death is not included in the word 
"death" in this chapter, and the denial that it is so included is hardly 
possible, that fact is certainly connected with representation in Adam 
in 1. Cor. 15:22. These two chapters, therefore, show this representative 
relation of Adam, and that, because of it, all men have sinned in him 
and are justly treated as sinners. 



Abstract of Theology. 



278 



The discussion of this representative relation of Adam has rendered 
necessary a reference to that of Christ. It will be appropriate, 
therefore, to present in a tabular form the parallel between the 
consequences of these relations, as a further proof of the representative 
character of each of these persons. 



Those represented in Adam. 



Sin is imputed. 

Treated as though sinners. 

Not thus personally sinners. 

Not regarded as guilty of Adam's 
sin. 

But only sinners representatively. 

Though not personally sinners in 
Adam, yet horn sinful, and naturally 
hecoming actual sinners. 

Condemned to all the penalties of 
death because of Adam's sin. 



Voluntarily accepting the relation to 
Adam, and persevering in the life of 
sin inaugurated by him. 



Those represented in Christ. 

Righteousness is imputed. 

Treated as though righteous. 

Not thus personally righteous. 

Not regarded as meritoriously pos- 
sessed of Christ's righteousness. 

But only righteous representatively. 

Though not personally holy in Christ, 
yet born again unto holiness, and 
graciously becoming more and more 
holy until finally sanctified. 

Released from penalty, and attain- 
ing to spiritual life and immortality, 
because of Christ's active and passive 
obedience. 

Voluntarily, though by God's help 
and grace, accepting the relation to 
Christ, and persevering in the holy life 
into which he has brought them. 



Abstract of Theology. 280 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE XXV. 



Christ in the Old Testament. 

The Old Testament furnishes an early promise of the deliverer from 
sin in the "seed of the woman." That prophecy was not fulfilled until 
the birth of Christ. But throughout the ancient inspired writings 
there occur frequent manifestations of Jehovah, some of them even in 
human form, and numerous prophecies of the future appearance of the 
Messiah. Before proceeding to the discussion of the Person of Christ 
it is proper that these should be considered. In accordance, therefore, 
with the promise (p. 143.) that they should be presented in con- 
nection with the Messiahship of Christ they are here given. 

From Genesis: 

3:15. The seed of the woman is predicted, a human being, who is 
to suffer through his conflict with the serpent, but who shall finally 
destroy him. 

4:1. Eve shows that she had supposed that this was to be fulfilled 
by the birth of one who was Jehovah. "I have gotten a man, the 
Jehovah." Though she was mistaken as to the person, this fact is not 
to be overlooked. 

16:7. The angel of the Lord appears to Hagar; 
:9. orders her to return to her mistress ; 
:10. assumes divine power by promising to multiply her seed 
exceedingly so that it shall not be numbered for multitude. 

In v. 13. This angel is called: The Lord and God. 



281 Abstract of Theology. 

Chap. 18:1. The introductory verse tells that the Lord appeared 
unto Abraham in the plains of Mamre. 

v. 2. Begins the narrative and tells how this was; "he lifted up 
his eyes and looked, and lo three men stood by him/' 

v. 3 , 4. and 5. Abraham thus addresses these: (3) "My Lord, if 
now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, 1 pray thee, 
from thy servant. (4) Let a little water. I pray you, be fetched, and 
wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree. (5) And I will 
fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts ; after that ye 
shall pass on : for therefore are ye come to your servant. 

v. 10. The same divine power of creation is asserted as to Sarah 
which in Chap. 16:10 was asserted as to Hagar : "I will certainly return 
unto thee according to the time of life ; and, lo, Sarah shall have ason." 

In v. 13. Upon Sarah's laughter it is said: "'The Lord spoke to 
Abraham." 

v. 14. Claims omnipotence. "Is any thing too hard for the Lord?" 

v. 17. He is again called the Lord and speaks of his purpose and 
asks: "."Shall I hide it from Abraham." 

v. 19. Declares he will not do so, because Abraham will command 
his children and household to "keep the way of the Lord; that the 
Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him." 

v. 20. The Lord declares to Abraham his purpose. 

v. 22. The other two leave and go towards Sodom, (and, chap. 19:1, 
arrive there ;) but Abraham stood yet before the Lord. 

v. 23. to 33. The conversation between Abraham and the Lord 
shows the following facts : 1. That He had absolute control over the 
fate of the cities of the plain. 2. That He was the Judge of all the 
earth ; He is called so in verse 25. 3. Abraham speaks of himself as 
in comparison but dust and ashes. 

v. 26 and 33. He is again called Lord. 
- Chap. 19. The two angels now come to Sodom, but claim no such 
names or privileges. 

Though they performed the miracle of blinding the men of the city, 
(v. 11); yet in verse 13 when declaring their intention to destroy the 
city, they declare that it is the Lord whom they have offended, and 
that "the Lord hath sent us to destroy it." 

v. 24. After Lot's escape ; "Then the Lord rained upon Sodom 
and Gomorrah, brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven." 
"^Chap. 21:17. At the time that Hagar and Isbmael were cast out ; 
God is said to have heard her, and the angel of God to have called to 



Abstract of Theology. 282 

her out of heaven. These names seem to be interchangeable, (yet 
this passage is most doubtful of any.) 

*" In Chap. 22. We have the trial of the faith of Abraham, in the 
command to offer up Isaac. This is done by the command of God. 

In verse 11. The angel of the Lord calls to Abraham to stay his 
hand. 

verse 12. Assigns as a reason : Thou hast not withheld thy son, 
thy only son from me. 

verse 14. Abraham calls the name of the place : Jehovah-Jireh. 

verse 15 and 16. "The angel of the Lord called unto Abraham the 
second time and said, By myself have I sworn saith the Lord, &c, going 
on to promise on this account the exercise of the same creative power. 

Chap. 24:3. The person that has been spoken of as the Jehovah is 
called the God of heaven. 

verse 7. The Lord God of heaven is spoken of as the one who, had 
taken Abraham from his father's house, and had made him the 
various promises. 

Chap. 31:11. Jacob tells of an angel of God that spake, unto him, 
and in 

verse 13. He is called the God of Bethel. Compare with this the 
language in reference to the being whom Jacob met at Bethel, when 
the angels ascended and descended the ladder, as found in Chap. 28., 
v. 13—22, and in Chap. 32:9. 
- Chap. 32;24 — 32. Jacob wrestles with a man, in 

verse 28. Jacobs name is changed because he has power with God, 
and with men, and has prevailed. 

verse 30. Jacob calls the name of the place Peniel because there 
he had seen God face to face. 

, In Chap. 35:9 — -15. The same event is again related, and there it 
is said that the one who thus appeared said, verse 11, *T am God 
Almighty." 

In Chap. 48:15.16. -Jacob blessing Joseph through his two sons, 
Ephraim and Manasseh, says, "God, before whom my fathers Abraham 
and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this 
day, the angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads." The 
names of God, the God, and the Angel, indicate the identity between 
God and the angel. There is but the one verb bless, common to all of 
these nominatives. 



!S3 



Abstract of Theology. 



Prom Exodus. 















Chap. 3:2. The angel of the Lord appears to Moses in a flame of 

fire in the bush. 

v. 4. This angel is called the Lord and God. 

v. 6. He speaks thus, "I am the God of thy father, the God of 
Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. 

v. 7. He is again called the Lord. 

v. 8. Tells that he has come to deliver Israel. 

v. 10. Calls them "my people." 

v. 11—13. He is called God. 

v. 14. Declares himself by his name, "I am that I am," and tells 
\ Moses to say to the children of Israel, "I am hath sent me to you." 

v. 15.16. Speaks of himself in each as "the Lord God of your 
father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." 

v. 18. Commands Moses to say Pharaoh, "The Lord God of 
the Hebrews hath met with us. and now let us go, we beseech thee, 
three days' journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the 
Lord our God." 
- — Chap. 6. Moses has another interview with the Lord after his ap- 
plication to Pharaoh had resulted in heavier burdens. In this 

v. 3. God uses this language : "I appeared unto Abraham, 
unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, bat 
by my name Jehovah was I not known to them."' This language 
implies a peculiar reason for assuming the name of Jehovah. With the 
exception of the Jewish idea of the Self Existent Unchangeable Being 
no other can be assigned which is not applicable to Christ.. 
r-> Chap. 13:21. "And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar 
of a cloud, to lead them the way ; and by night in a pillar of fire, to 
give them light." And in 
_^. Chap. 14:19. It is said that it was the angel of God who thus went 

before Israel. 
^- Chap. 23:21. The name of the Lord is said to be "in the angel" which 
he sends before the Israelites, and he is said to have the power of 
pardoning sin. And in 

v. 25. This angel seems to be the one spoken of as the Lord God, 
and no distinction, seems to exist between him as thus to be worshipped, 
and the God by whom he has been sent. "Ye shall serve the Lord 
your God, and he shall bless thy bread, and thy water ; and I will 
take sickness away from the midst of thee." This passage is remark- 
able because in the whole context the sin of idolatry is forbidden. 



Abstract of Theology. 284 

— Chap. 32:33. The divine character of the Angel that is thus said 
to be sent before Israel is distinctly seen also in the contrast presented 
in the language, in Chapter 32:34 and 33:1 — 4, when God, threatening 
to refuse to go with them Himself, declares that He will send His angel. 
The angel here spoken of has no ascription of divine names or titles, 
and the change is (verse 4 of Chap. 33) recognized by the whole 
people as a calamity. The promised presence of the other angel had 
been hailed as a blessing. In Chap. 33. subsequent to the above, we 
have an account of an interview because of these facts between Moses 
and Jehovah and this followed by a promise that he will hereafter 
attend them. 

v. 8. Moses goes to the tabernacle, and all the children of Israel 
stand at their tent doors and watch him. 

v. 9. The cloudy pillar descends, and stands at the door of the 
tabernacle ; and the Lord talks with Moses. 

v. 14. Upon the previous remonstrance of Moses, He (the Lord) 
said, My presence shall go (with thee,) and I will give thee rest. 

v. 17 to 23. The Lord, thus spoken to, is asked to show Moses his 
glory, and declares that it shall be partially done, but cannot be 
entirely because no man shall see his face and live. Now the fact 
that the Lord had spoken face to face with Moses is stated in verse 
11. How can we reconcile these without supposing that Moses 
spoke to the Angel ot the Lord, who in that character spoke to him 
face to face, and his promised presence was regarded as that of God? 

Prom Numbers. 

Chap. 22. The angel of the Lord appears in the way to Balaam, 
angered that he had gone to Balak, after God's consent had been 
given, after much entreaty. And in 

verse 35. Uses the language which God had before used in v. 20. 
"The words which I shall say unto thee, that shalt thou 'do." v. 35. 
"The word that I shall speak unto thee, that shalt thou speak/' 

Prom Joshua. 

Chap. 5=13. When Joshua was by Jericho a man meets him with 
a drawn sword. 

verse 14. He declares himself to be the captain of the Host of the 
Lord, and Joshua worships him. 

verse 15. He claims divinity by saying unto Joshua, "Loose thy 
shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is 
holy. And Joshua did so." 



2S5 



Abstract of Theology 



Chap. 6. Continues the narrative immediately. It is one of the 
cases of unfortunate division of chapters. There is here, therefore, the 
intimate connection of continued narrative. And in 

verse 2. This person is called Jehovah. 















From Judges. 

Chap. 2:1. An angel appears to the people at Bochim, speaks of 
the covenant he had made, and of the land he sware unto the fathers. 

verse 2. Charges them with a breach of their covenant, saying, "ye 
have not obeyed my voice." 

verse 4. He is called "the angel of the Lord." 

verse 5. The people "sacrificed there unto the Lord." 

Chap. 6:11. The angel of the Lord comes and sits under the oak 
of Joash'. 

verse 12. Appears to his son Gideon, and declares to him, that the 
Lord is with him. 

verse 13. Gideon asks if this be so, why these calamities that have 
befallen Israel. 

verse 14. The angel is called the Lord, and tells Gideon to go in 
his (Gideon's) might, and he shall save Israel, adding, "have not I 
sent thee." 

verse 16. In answer to Gideon's fears, he says, "surely I will be 
with thee." j/gk 

verse 17 to 21. Gideon asks for a sign, which is granted ^fo him, 
and the angel departs. 

verse 22. The effect of this miracle is to satisfy Gideon that it was 
an angel of the Lord, and he fears and trembles because he has thus 
seen him face to face. The article 'an' does not belong to the Hebrew 
language. The article 'the' is not here used, but simply Malek 
Yehovah. The probability is that by this time this had become a 
proper name for 'the angel of the Lord.' That this was that angel 
is seen from his promise to be with Gideon, as of itself sufficient 
protection, and his declaration that he sent him, as furnishing suffi- 
cient assurance that he should be successful. This is farther 

verse 23. Confirmed by the assurance of the Lord, "Peace, be, 
unto thee ; fear not: thou shalt not die," and by the further fact that 

verse 24. "Gideon built an altar then unto the Lord, and called it 
Jehovah-shalom." 

We have a somewhat similar account in 

Chap. 13. The angel that appeared to Manoah, the father of 
Samson. 






Abstract of Theology. 286 

verse 3. The angel first appeared to the wife, and promised the 
son, and gave her directions how to live, until he should be born. 

verse 6. The wife thus describes him to Manoah : "A man of God 
came unto me, and his countenance was like the countenance of an 
angel of God, very terrible: but I asked him not whence he was, 
neither told he me his name." 

verse 8. Manoah asks the Lord for the reappearance of the man 
of God. 

verse 9. The angel of God reappears to the woman, her husband 
not being with her. 

verse 10. She calls her husband. 

verse 11. Manoah comes, and converses with him. 

verse 15. He strives to detain him to offer a kid. 

verse 16. He refuses ; using this language. "Though thou detain 
me I will not eat of thy. bread ; and if thou wilt offer a burnt offering 
thou must offer it unto the Lord." Now nothing has been previously 
suggested as to burnt offering. The reason for this language is added 
"For Manoah knew not that he was an angel of the Lord." Upon 
being asked in verse 17 for his name the angel replies : 

verse 18. "Why askest thou thus after my name seeing it is 
secret." 

verse 19 and 20. Upon Manoah's making an offering "unto the 
Lord" the angel "did wondrously" ascending in the flame of the 
altar. 

verse 22. "Manoah said unto his wife, we shall surely die because 
we have seen God." 

The angel of the Lord thus referred to in so many passages was 
the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity. 

Prom the Psalms. 

The 2nd Psalm. This psalm naturally divides itself into three 
parts. In 

verses 1 to 8. The nations are seen taking counsel together against 
God and the Messiah. 

v. 4 to 9. God is represented as laughing at their folly, and, in 
despite of it, setting that king upon the holy hill of Zion. 

v. 10 to 12. The kings of the earth are exhorted to submit to his 
authority, and to serve the Lord. In this psalm 

1. The personage here spoken of is identified with God, so that to 
counsel against him is to counsel against God. 



2S7 



Abstract of Theology. 
























2. To him is to be given universal dominion. 

3. The epithet Son of God is given him. 

4. As the possessor of this title he is to ask for, and obtain this 
authority. 

5. The power to be exercised is superhuman, so that his enemies 
shall be easily and utterly destroyed. 

6. He is the Lord who is to be worshipped in the 11th verse. 

7. The kindling of his wrath but a little is to consume his foes. 

8. They who trust in him are peculiarly blessed. 

Psalm 22. This psalm is divided into two parts. As far as verse 22 
a sufferer is described, whose prayers for deliverance show the intens- 
ity of his sufferings. Many of the verses as 1, 7, 8, 17, 18 are used 
with reference to the crucifixion of Christ in the New Testament. 

Verses 22 to 31. The consequences of his deliverance are declared 

22 to 24. (1) That all the good shall be called on to love and 
fear God. 

verse 26. (2) That by his sufferings and deliverance provision 
shall be made for all mankind and all their wants. 

verse 27. (3.) The ends of the earth are to remember and turn to 
the Lord. 

verse 28. (4) The kingdom is the Lord's. 

Psalm 45. In this Psalm the glory of a king is described. His 
superiority to men. and his divine character are plainly taught. 

verse 2. He is declared to be fairer than the children of men ; 
grace is poured into his lips ; and God's blessing rests on him for 
ever. 

verse 3 to 5. He is called on to exercise his glory and power, and 
the grounds upon which he is to conquer are his truth, meekness, and 
righteousness. 

verse 5. He is called God, Elohim. The Septuagint translates it 
"Theos," and the passage is quoted as proof of divinity in Hebrews, 
1:8, "Thy throne, oh God, is forever and ever." 

verse 7. He is again called God, "God thy God hath anointed 
thee." 

verse 8 to 16. The bride is spoken of in such terms, as show 
that the church of Christ is meant. 

verse 17. It is said, that his name shall "be remembered unto all 
generations: therefore shall the people praise thee forever and ever." 

Psalm 72. The divine character of the king described in this 
Psalm is seen. 



Abstract of Theology. 288 

verses 1 — 4. Show the peaceful and righteous character of his reign. 

verse 5. It is to continue as long as the sun and moon, throughout 
all generations. 

verses 6 and 7. His reign is to be of the most blissful character. 

verses 8 — 11. This dominion shall be universal "from sea to sea, 
from the river to the ends of the earth." "All kings shall fall down 
before him : all nations shall serve him." 

verses 13 and 14. He shall save the souls of people. 

verses 16 and 17. His name is to endure forever, and in him all 
nations shall be blessed. 

Psalm 110. The divine character of the person here spoken of is 
manifest. 

verse 1. David calls him his Lord. 

verse 2. The rod of his strength was to come out ofZion, the 
church. 

verse 3. The people are to be made willing in the day of his power. 

verse 4. He is to be a priest and a king forever: being a priest 
after the order of Melchizedek involved kingship. 

verses 1 and 5. He is spoken of as at the right hand of God ; which 
gives him a position of conjoint government. 

verse 5. He is called Lord. 

From Isaiah. 

In Chapters 7, 8 and 9, we have the account of the birth of a 
child from a virgin, who is to be called Immanuel, God with us. 
Chap. 7:14. 

Chap. 9:2. His coming is the source of great light to those who 
had been in darkness. 

verse 6. It is said that his name shall be called "Wonderful, 
Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of 
Peace." 

verse 7. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall 
be no end. 

Chap. 11. A rod is to come out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch 
to grow out of his roots. He is seen to be divine, 

verses 1 — 5. From the character of himself, and his government. 

verses 6 — 10. The consequences are universal peace, peace enjoyed 
even by a change of the nature of earthly animals, indicating a change 
of the nature of men as made by this reign. 



289 



Abstract of Theology. 



verses 11 — 16. There is to be universal laying aside of all jealous- 
ies, and all the people of God are to be gathered together. And then, 
(for the two chapters are intimately connected.) 

Chap. 12. There shall be a song of thanksgiving. Men shall say : 

verse 2. "Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be 
afraid : for the Lord Jehovah is my strength and my song ; he also 
is become my salvation." 

After continued praise throughout the chapter of the same tenor 
it closes thus : 

verse 6. "Cry out and shout, thou inhabitant of Zion : for great is 
the Holy One of Israel in the midst of thee." 

Chap. 40. This chapter opens with words of comfort to the people 
of God, and then 

verse 3. We have a call, by one in the wilderness, to prepare 
"the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for 
our God." 

verse 5. We are told that "the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, 
and all flesh shall see it together." 

verse 9. Zion and Jerusalem are called on to "say unto the cities 
of Judah, Behold your God." 

verse 10. This God is thus described, "Behold the Lord God will 
come with s'rong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his 
reward is with him, and his work before him." 

verse 11. "He shall feed his flock like a shepherd.'" 

Chap. 42. Speaks of one called verse 1. "My servant, whom I 
uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth." 

verse 4. "He shall uot fail nor be discouraged, till he have set 
judgment in the earth : and the isles shall wait for his law." Then 
we have this remarkable language : 

verse 5 — 7. "Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the 
heavens, and stretched them out ; he that spread forth the earth, 
and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the 
people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein: I the Lord 
have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will 
keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of 
the Gentiles ; to open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the 
prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house." And 
then follows this remarkable declaration, in immediate connection, 

verse 8. "I am the Lord ; that is my name : and my glory will 
I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images." 



Abstract of Theology. 290 

Chap. 43:1. "But now thus saith the Lord that created thee, 
Jacob, and he that formed thee, Israel, Fear not : for I have 
redeemed thee. I have called thee by thy name ; thou art mine." 

verse 2. '"When thou passest through the waters, I will be with 
thee ; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee : when thou 
walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the 
flame kindle upon thee." 

verse 3. "For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy one of Israel, thy 
Saviour." 

verses 10 and 11. The same person says, "Before me there was 
no God formed, neither shall there be after me ; I, even I, am the 
Lord, and beside me there is no Saviour." 

verses 14 and 15. One claims to be the Lord, the Redeemer, the 
Holy One of Israel, and refers in verses 16 and 17 plainly to the 
deliverance at the Red Sea, and then goes on in subsequent verses to 
tell of a greater deliverance. 

In verse 23. He declares that he has not been led to look with 
favour upon them because of their offerings. 

But verse 24. "Thou hast made me to serve with thy sins, thou 
hast wearied me with thine iniquities," and 

verse 25. I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for 
mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins. 

Chap. 44:6. "Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his 
Redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and 
beside me there is no God." 

verse 22. "I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, 
and, as a cloud, thy sins: return unto me; for I have redeemed thee." 

verse 23. "Sing, ye heavens ; for the Lord hath done it : * * * 
for the Lord hath redeemed Jacob, and glorified himself in Israel." 

Chap. 45:15. "Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, God 
of Israel, the Saviour." 

verses 21 and 22. "There is no God else beside me; a just God 
and a Saviour : there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be 
ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none 
else." 

verses 24 and 25. "Surely, shall one say, In the Lord have I 
righteousness and strength : even to him shall men come ; and all 
that are incensed against him shall be ashamed. In the Lord shall 
all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory." 



291 Abstract of Theology. 

Chap. 47:4. "As for our Redeemer, the Lord of hosts in his name, 
the Holy One of Israel." 

Chap. 49. This whole chapter is striking. In the first part Christ 
is described as sent to the Jews, v. 1 to 4 ; and complains of want of 
success, v. 5 to 12 ; he is said on this account to be sent to the Gentiles. 

verse 5. He declares that thus : "shall I be glorious in the eyes of 
the Lord, and my God shall be my strength." 

verse 6. The restoration of Israel is spoken of as a trifling service 
for this person, and God says : k 'I will also give thee for a light to 
the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of 
the earth." 

verse 7 reads thus : "Thus saith the Lord, the Eedeemer of Israel, 
and his Holy One, to him whom man dispiseth, to him whom the 
nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, 
princes also shall worship, because of the Lord that is faithful, and 
the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee." 

Chap. 50 : 7 — 9. We have a passage which, taken in connection with 
the exultant language of Paul in the latter part of the 8th of Romans 
is remarkable. 

verse 8. "He is near that justifieth me; who will contend with 
me? let us stand together: who is mine adversary? let him come 
near to me." 

verse 9. "Behold, the Lord God will help me; who is he that shall 
condemn me?" 

Chap. 54=5. "For thy Maker is thine husband ; the Lord of hosts 
is his name ; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel ; The God of 
the whole earth shall he be called." 

Chap. 62. Has a similar idea. It is said of the Church : 

verse 5. "As the bridegroom rejoi3eth over the bride, so shall thy 
God rejoice over thee." 

Chap. 63. One is seen coming from Edom with dyed garments 
from Bozrah, one glorious in apparel. The prophet inquires "who is 
he?" The answer is made : "I that speak in righteousness, mighty 
to save." 

verse 2. Another question is asked, why these garments are thus 
red ? and the reply is made that he had trodden the winepress alone. 
In the course of this reply, he, who has thus trodden the winepress, 
says verges 4 and 5. "The day of vengeance is in mine heart, and the 
year of my redeemed is come. And I looked, and there was none to 
help ; and I wondered that there was none to uphold : therefore mine 
own arm brought salvation unto me ; and my fury, it upheld me." 



Abstract of Theology. 292 

The author then goes on in verse 7 to say that he will proclaim the 
mercies of the Lord and the multitude of his loving kindnesses, 
and adds 

verse 8. "For he said, surely they are my people, children that 
will not lie : so he was their Saviour." 

verse 9. "In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his 
presence saved them." 

From Jeremiah. 

Chap. 23=5. The day is foretold by Jehovah when He will raise 
unto David a righteous Branch. 

verse 6. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell 
safely. And this is the name whereby he shall be called, "The 
Lord our Righteousness." 

Prom Daniel. 

Chap. 9. In the confession and prayer of Daniel in answer to 
which Gabriel informs him of the seventy weeks within which Messiah 
shall come, we have this verse: 

verse 17. "Now therefore, our God, hear the prayer of thy 
servant, and his supplications, and cause thy face to shine upon thy 
sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord's sake." To what purpose 
this expression unless there had been in the mind of Daniel some 
conception of distinction of persons in the Godhead. And, even if he 
had none, why is this used as the language of inspiration unless it was 
intended to convey that idea. 

Prom Joel. 

Chap. 2:32. We have the passage which was quoted by Peter in 
his address at Pentecost. "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever 
shall call on the name of the Lord, shall be delivered." This cannot 
be pressed because Jehovah may be called on as the Father giving 
salvation through the Son. Still in New Testament times Christ was 
always called the Lord ; see 1. Cor. 1:2 ; whence Christians are spoken 
of as those who call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. 

Prom Micah. 

Chap. 5:2. A prophecy is made of one to come out of Bethlehem 
Ephratah. This promise was universally understood as of the Mes- 



293 



Abstract of Theology. 



siah, and the event confirmed the expectations of the Jews. The person 
here prophesied of is "the Ruler of Israel," the heacl of the church ; of 
him it is said that "his goings forth have been from old, from ever- 
lasting." 

From Haggai. 

Chap. 2=6 — 10. The prophecy is given of the coming of "the desire 
of all nations." The house then building was to be filled with glory, 
so that the glory of the latter house was to be greater than that of 
the former. 

In the former had dwelt the Shechinah. In this was to appear the 
Son of God in human form. In this respect only could the glory of 
the latter temple exceed that of the former. 



From Zechariah. 

The passages in Chapters 1, 2, 3 and 6 are claimed by Dr. J. Pye 
Smith as conclusively testifying of Christ. But they are by no means 
conclusive. The angel of the Lord there spoken of seems to say and 
to do nothing, and to have nothing said of him which might not be- 
long to a created angel. But, as these passages have been earnestly 
pressed they ought at least to be mentioned, in order that they may 
be considered. 

Chap. 12:10. "They shall look upon me [unto me] whom they 
have pierced." 

This is God speaking of the inhabitants of Jerusalem. It can only 
be true in such a way as recognizes Christ's divine person, and such 
a union of that person with his human nature, that, what is done to 
his body may be said by God to be done to himself. 

Chap. 13. Is a brilliantly descriptive chapter ot Messianic events. 

verse 1. Speaks of the fountain to be opened forsin and uncleanness. 

verses 2 — 6. Relates the result to be the purgation of the land 
from false prophets and prophecies. 

verse 7. "Awake, sword, against my shepherd, and against the 
man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts." 

Here a man is spoken of as the equal of Jehovah, and it is against 
him that the sword of divine justice is to be directed. 



Abstract of Theology. 294 



Prom Malachi. 



Chap. 3:1. Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare 
the way before me : and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come \/ 
to his temple, even the messenger (angel) of the covenant, whom ye 
delight in : behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts. 

In this passage we find : 

1. The Lord is to come suddenly to his temple. 

2. He is the angel of the covenant. 



Abstract of Theology. 296 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE XXVI 



The Person of Christ. 

I. The doctrine of the Trinity lies at the foundation of that of 
Christ's Person. 

That doctrine is that three persons subsist , in one divine nature. It 
was one of these persons, and not the divine nature itself that became 
incarnate. 

1. It was not the Godhead that became incarnate, but one of the 
persons of the Godhead. 

2. It was not the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit, but it was 
the Son alone. 

3. It was not God abstractly and unitedly, but God personally, 
the Word that was with God, and that was God, that was made flesh, 

4. It was not, therefore, that which was common to the three 
persons that assumed our nature; but it was that which, in the 
economy of the Trinity, is distinguished from the others. 

5. It was, therefore, not the divine nature or essence, but a person 
who subsists in that divine nature equally with the others, but who is 
distinguished, in his relation to that divine nature, from the other 
persons of the Trinity. 

The doctrine of the Trinity is therefore essentially involved in that 
of the Person of Christ. It is because of the fact of individual person- 
ality in the divine Being, by virtue of which, though His nature and 
essence and being are so one that He is one God, He is yet threefold, 
that personal distinctions also exist, and that one person, who is God, 



297 



Abstract of Theology. 






can become incarnate without involving the incarnation of the other 
persons. 

Personal distinctions in the Trinity are not necessary to the incar- 
nation of God, but are to that of a divine person. 

They are also necessary to the work which Christ performed. Were 
God only one person, He could not manifest rule and yet empty 
Himself of it; could not send and yet be sent ; could not be lawgiver 
and also voluntary subject ; could not make atonement and yet receive 
it ; could not pour out wrath and yet endure it. 

The Scriptures, therefore, persistently teach, not that "God came," 
"was sent," "was made flesh;" but that God "gave his only begotten 
Son," "sent his Son not to condemn the world," "sent forth his Son 
made of a woman," "sent his only begotten Son into the world," and 
that "the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world." Indeed 
the first chapter of John, w T hich sets forth the doctrines of the incarn- 
ation and Trinity, plainly declares, (John 1:18), "No man hath seen 
God at any time ; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the 
Father, he hath declared Him." 

II. This person in his incarnation preserved unaltered his essential 
relations to the divine nature, or essence. 

1. The only Scripture passage which seems to oppose this is Phil. 
2:5 — 8 ; but a proper consideration of this passage shows that it does 
not. The subordination, thus voluntarily assumed by the Son, was 
manifestly official, and that of one divine person to another. It could 
not have been a subordination of one divine nature to another, 
for there is but the one divine nature. It is therefore a subordination 
of one person to another, the Son to the Father. Neither, in that 
subordination, was there any separation of Christ from his divine 
nature. Such separation was noc necessary to his incarnation. It 
was only necessary that he should appear to men as man, and not as 
God. His divinity was therefore concealed in his human form. But 
he, equally with the Father and the Spirit, possessed, of right, as God, 
rule and authority over all creatures and worlds. This he continued 
to possess essentially as God, but as the Son he yielded its exercise 
exclusively into the hands of the Father ; so, that during the period 
I of his earthly residence, he consented to be as one that was sent, and 
thus as the servant of the Father, doing his will and obedient to his 
authority. The context shows this to be the only meaning. The object 
in introducing this statement is to induce the Philippians, in a like 
spirit of self submission, to esteem others better than themselves, (a 



Abstract of Theology. 298 

case therefore of subordination among equals). And, after this state- 
ment about Christ, Paul enforces this obligation by showing how the 
Father had so rewarded this actof the Son, that the rightful dominion, 
and power, which belong essentially to God, and to Christ, there- 
fore, only in his divine nature, had been conferred upon him in his 
human nature, so that "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow and 
every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God, 
the Father." 

It was this official position of rule arid dominion which constituted 
the glory which he had with the Father, and which he prayed the 
Father to bestow upon him again. Such prayer was not necessary to 
bestow it upon him as God ; for, in his divine nature, he had continued 
to possess although not exercise it, but it was necessary, since this was | 
also to be conferred upon him as man, and in this respect it could only 
be conferred as a reward or gift, and by the consent of all the persons 
of the Trinity. (Compare the 2nd Psalm, especially verses 6- — 8, but 
the whole Psalm.) 

The Scriptures go no farther than this idea of official subordination, v 
They say nothing of Christ leaving his divinity behind him, as 
though cast off like a garment. They do not say that for his dwelling 
on earth, his divinity had to cease, or be absorbed in that of the 
Father and the Spirit ; nor that it had an indefinite existence in a 
transition state, awaiting a reunion after the incarnation work. 

It is well to remember that they not only do not, but could not thus 
teach, for some men imagine this and overlook what may be next 
shown, namely, 

2. That the Scriptures teach that while he was incarnate he was ") 
truly God. 

So fully is this taught, that we have no evidence at all of Christ's 
divinity which is not presented with equal force of him while on 
earth. 

All the attributes of divinity are ascribed to him, eternity of existence, 
self-existence, omnipotence, omnipresence, presence in heaven and on 
earth, the contemplation of and unity with the Father, and co- working 
with Him. These are declared of him and manifested by him while 
he stood in the form of man, in the midst of his disciples and the 
multitude. 

It was while in the same form that he performed acts which none 
other than God can of himself do, declaring that these acts were done 
by his own power. He turned water into wine, not by the ordinary 



299 



Abstract of Theology. 



and slow processes of nature, bat instantly and without a word. He 
created bread and fish in the hands of his disciples. He controlled the 
winds and the waves. He forgave sin. He gave life to the dead. He 
made known events in distant places. He searched the hearts, and 
revealed the secret thoughts of men. He laid down his own life, and 
took it up again. 

The constant workings of his divine power and energy; by which he 
is essentially, as God, always working with the Father, were indeed 
concealed; but thus, at times, before the people at large, and more 
frequently before his disciples, the divinity shone through the veil 
which ordinarily concealed it, and testified that he was as truly God 
as he was also man. 

3. He allowed himself to be treated as God during the incarnation. 

How could he be called God during his days in the flesh, or receive 
worship as such? how could it be the will of the Father that men 
should honour the Son even as they honour the Father? how could 
Elizabeth call Mary the mother of my Lord'? or the angels announce 
to the shepherds that Christ the Lord was born ? or Peter declare to 
the Jews that they had crucified the Lord of glory ? or Paul describe 
the people of God, to the Ephesian elders, as the church of God (the 
Lord) which he had bought with his own blood? How can men be 
warned lest they crucify the Son of God afresh, and tread him under 
foot ? How could Thomas cry out to him, my Lord and my God, and 
how Peter confess, "thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God ;" 
it was because, though a servant, he was still the Lord, having his 
relations to his divine nature unimpaired, and entitled to the names, 
as he was also able to perform the acts, and display the attributes of 
God. 

The importance of this fact of the Scripture teaching cannot be 
over-estimated. In its appropriate relations to the other truths 
taught, it becomes the foundation of every hope. It is not a mere 
speculation. It enters into the very life of the Christian, enabling him 
to say : "I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is 
able to keep that which I have committed to him against that day." 
It is not sufficient for us to know that the person, who died for us, was 
divine before he came into the world. The Scriptures assure us, and 
we need to comfort ourselves with the assurance, that he was equally 
divine when a babe in Bethlehem, when suffering upon the cross, when 
ascending from Olivet, and, even now, while, in human nature, he 
rules as Mediatorial King, or as our great High Priest makes inter- 



Abstract of Theology. 300 

cession with the Father. We must even go beyond the idea of some 
kind of divinity, and recognize him as the unchangeable God, who 
was, and is, and ever shall be, the Almighty, the well beloved Son of 
the Father, whom be always hears, and to whom all things have been 
entrusted, in order that the consummation of his glorious kingdom 
may be fully attained. The incarnation has been, indeed, of only one 
person of the Godhead, but of a person truly and essentially divine, 
whose relations to the divine nature have remained unaltered during 
his incarnation on earth and in heaven. 

III. That Christ became incarnate in such a sense that he became 
man. 

The Scriptures tell us that "he was made flesh and dwelt among 
us," that he was "made like unto his brethren," that he was the "son 
of man," that he was "man." The apostle says, Rom. 5:15, "by one 
man Christ Jesus." 

(1) By this is not meant, that this Divine person co-existed with a 
human person, so as to be, after all, two distinct existences or persons, 
the one receiving grace, and favour from the other. In this sense 
God may be said to co-exist with all men, especially with the 
righteous. 

(2) Nor is the idea only of such indwelling, that the glory of God 
is manifested as so specially present that the human person was the 
temple of the divine. In this sense God dwells even in material 
substances, as in the tabernacle, and temple of God. In this sense 
the Holy Ghost dwells in the bodies of believers in a still more perfect 
union. And such indwelling will attain its highest form when God 
shall dwell in the temple to be composed of his redeemed saints. 

(3) But, though the body of Christ is the temple of God, it is such 
as the result of a union not less strict than one which makes the 
indwelling person actually and truly a man. While the relation to 
the divine nature remains unchanged ; and Christ is still truly God, 
the relation to the human nature is so assumed that Christ also 
becomes truly man. He is born of a woman. He comes in the flesh. 
He assumes a human nature which becomes, as truly and really, 
though not as eternally and essentially, his, as his divine nature. 

The Scriptures reveal to us a proper humanity, consisting of a real 
body, and a rational soul. Christ is represented as combining in his 
humanity all that is in ours; except that he, being without sin, 
exhibited that perfection of humanity which has appeared in no other 
of the race except in Adam before his fall. 



301 Abstract of Theology. 

1st. He had a human body. This is now no longer questioned. 
In early days heretical views existed on this point. Because matter 
was deemed inherently evil, it was supposed Christ could have no 
material body. His body was supposed, therefore, to have been 
merely a phantom, an appearance of a man. Probably to such a 
heresy the Apostle John refers. 1. John 4.3. Such was an early 
sect known as the Docetae. But these heresies soon disappeared, and 
it is now no longer disputed that Christ had a true human body com- 
posed of bones, and flesh, and blood as are the bodies of other men. 

The Scripture statements as to this fact are unquestionable. Christ 
is spoken of as conceived in his mother's womb, as born, as drawing 
nourishment from her breast, as receiving circumcision, as growing in 
stature, as hungering, thirsting, wearied, as eating, drinking, sleeping. 
We are told of his bodily pain, of his bloody sweat, of his sinking 
under exhaustion, of his pierced body, of his bones that were not 
broken, of the wounds made in his hands by the nailing to the cross. 
The parts of his body are mentioned, his hands, his feet, his side, his 
head, his brow, his cheek, and his breast on which the beloved disciple 
leaned. The entire representation presents him possessed of such 
outward form, influenced by such bodily feelings, and engaged in such 
bodily acts as assure us of the reality of his body. No other theory 
is possible except that of the Docetae. 

(1) Against that, it may be said that, if che assumption of a real 
body were derogatory to Christ the effort would not have been so 
persistently made to present that body as real, and to induce the 
multitude and his disciples to believe it such. 

(2) Three passages in Scripture give direct testimony against it. 
Heb. 2; 14. Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh 

and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same." While 
thisrefers indeed to human nature, it cannot be taken of that to the 
exclusion of the very characteristics by which that human nature is 
described. 

The other two are stronger for they directly bear upon phantom 
appearances and Christ denies that he is one. One is the narrative 
of Christ walking on the sea to the boat which held the disciples, 
Matt. 14:22—33. In verse 26 they are said to cry out : "It is a 
spirit," and Christ replies: "It is I." 

The other is the account of that interview in which those who had 
walked with him to Emmaus report his presence with them to the 
Eleven, Luke 24:13—48. The language of verses 36—39 is : "And 



Abstract of Theology. 302 

as they thus spake Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith 
unto them : Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted 
and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them : 
Why are ye troubled, and why do thoughts arise in your hearts. 
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself, handle me and see, 
for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." He then 
showed his hands and feet, and still further called for meat, and ate 
"a piece of broiled fish and of an honey comb." 

This action of Christ either meant nothing, or meant that he had, 
even then, a real body with all its functions in due exercise. 

The fact, therefore, that Christ in his incarnation possesed a real 
human body subject to all the sinless infirmities of our bodies is put 
beyond all question. 

IV. He had a human soul also. The evidence of this has been 
regarded almost equally conclusive. The only difficulty is that some 
suppose that, if he had a human soul, he must have been two persons 
and not one only. Hence Apollinaris taught that he had no human 
soul, but that his divine nature took its place. His theory was 
rejected with almost singular unanimity, but it has been revived from 
time to time, gaining but brief and limited acceptance, only to be 
forgotten again when the true doctrine has been set forth. 

1. The fact of such general acceptance of the existence of the human 
soul is strong evidence of its truth. Itis not certain but only probable 
evidence. When die theory of the divine nature becoming the human 
soul has been known, the faith in the other doctrine shows the im- 
pression naturally made by the Scripture; because there have been 
no reasons from prejudice,, or passion, or self-interest, to mislead. 

The objection, that thus there must be two persons in Christ, is an 
objection to the unity of his nature ; and this is all that leads to the 
acceptance of the doctrine of the divine nature as substituting the 
human soul. If, therefore, such be the union, that Christ can, as one 
person, subsist in two natures, without involving that personal duality, 
the full objection to the human soul is removed. We shall see here- 
after that this can be done. If it could not : then we have two 
theories, each with difficulties ; the one which amounts only to a 
difficulty in our comprehending what may after all be a psychological 
fact, the difficulty as to which may be a mere fancy ; the other which 
involves such an explanation of the Scripture statements as to Christ, 
as to deny that to be human action in him, which would be so regarded 



303 Abstract of Theology. 

in any other, and which also forces us to ascribe to divinity change 
suffering, temptation, and death. 

Let us examine these two theories first in the light of the Scrip- 
tures. 

1. We must not forget what has been before stated as to the 
relations of the persons of the Godhead. Because of the unity of God 
the Son does not possess a separate divine nature from that of the 
Father, and the Spirit. When it is said, therefore, that Christ's divine 
nature took the place of his human soul, is it meant that the divine 
nature which he had in common with the Father, and the Spirit, 
assumed humanity? If so, the incarnation was of the whole Godhead, 
Father, Son, and Spirit. 

Or, is it meant that some kind, or portion of divine nature, which 
Christ had separately from the Father, and the Spirit, did that? If 
so, what was that divine nature? He had none except that which he 
h id in common. To maintain otherwise, is to assert, not a trinity of 
persons in the Godhead, but three Gods. The very unity of the divine 
nature forbids the doctrine of Christ's divine nature being the 
substitute of his human soul. 

2. But compare the two theories, as to Christ's intellectual, and 
spiritual life here on earth. 

Neither denies that there were intellectual, and spiritual acts per- 
formed by Christ while in the flesh. 

The common theory asserts that some were performed by Christ by 
virtue of his divine nature, and some by virtue of his human soul. 
The manifestly divine acts are ascribed to him as God, the manifestly 
human to him as man. 

That there are divine acts is, therefore, held by these as well as by 
the others; also that some acts are difficult to classify, so as to deter- 
mine whether they are divine, or human. 

The question between the theories, therefore, is, whether there are 
any intellectual, or spiritual acts, or experiences of Christ here on 
earth which could not have resulted from a divine nature, but which 
are stamped with a distinctively human character? 

The inquiry is limited to this, though we might press the arguments 
of the ancients against Apollinaris, and his followers; as, how can the 
Scripture, be justified in calling Christ a man, and in representing his 
humanity as a qualification for his work of righteousness, and atone- 
ment, if he had bat a human body only ? Does the body alone con- 
stitute humanity ? If the body alone suffered, how then are the souls 



Abstract of Theology. 304 

of men healed? If, when he appeared upon earth as a man, he had 
only the body of a man, was he not, in the most important element 
of humanity, only an appearance, or phantom of a man ? Was it the 
body only of mankind that had sinned, and was condemned, and did 
the soul need no redemption? Was the virtue, secured by the divine 
nature in such incarnation, human virtue? Was it indeed any virtue 
at all? 

But these inquiries are not needed. The Scripture statements are 
themselves more than sufficient. What then do they say ? 

1. Of the theory of the substitution of the divine nature for the 
human soul, not one hint is given, throughout the entire Scripture. 
Not a syllable is there which teaches any thing more than that a 
divine person became incarnate. Nothing is said of the absence of a 
human soul ; nothing of the incarnation being in only a partial human 
nature ; nothing to show that the divine nature had any thing to do 
with the work ; except that the divine nature was possessed by him 
who became incarnate, but possessed by him, not separately from, but 
unitedly with the other persons of the Godhead. The Scriptures 
teach not, that the divine nature, (God,) became incarnate, but that 
he, who as well as the Father, and the Spirit, is God, became man. 

2. But the instances of human emotion are abundant. 

(a) Notice first the experiences already mentioned in connection 
with the body ; that it was not simply a temple in which Deity dwelt; 
but that Christ experienced in his body all those sinless passions and 
desires which arise from association of the body with a human soul. 
Whence come weariness, fatigue, thirst, &c? Does the body experience 
them when separated from the soul ? Did the body then affect the 
divine nature of Christ, as it does a human soul ? Is the divine nature 
capable of such affection from a mere material organization, a mere 
shell of a man ? Would such an idea be admitted for a moment of the 
influence of our bodies on the Holy Ghost within. A more vital union 
must exist. That which thus affects must be personally united with 
the nature thus affected. Can the body of a man be thus personally 
united with the divine nature ot Christ? If so, why may not the soul 
also. Is a twofold personality created in the one case any more than 
in the other ? Yet the objection is made to the existence of a human 
soul that thus twofold personality must exist, and that, as Christ is 
but one person, his divine nature must have been his human soul, or 
must have been substituted for it. 

But, it may be said that the affections referred to are those of the 
body only, and that, even among men, they are not associated with 



305 



Abstract of Theology. 






the soul, and that the life indicated in them is only the physical life 
possessed by all animals, and that such life is not inconsistent with 
the absence of a rational soul. The position assumed is not correct ; 
but, if granted, gives no- advantage to the theory we oppose. Is it 
not still the fact that the body exercises more or less influence on the 
mind, as well as the mind over the body ? Bodily disease enfeebles 
the mind. The mind, by its will, sustains, and, by its mental trials, 
depresses the body. When, therefore, we see such results in Christ, 
we must attribute them to the same causes as among men. What then 
gave occasion and power to the tempter in the wilderness except the 
bodily desire arising from the previous forty day fast? To what was 
due Christ's inability to carry his cross to crucifixion, if not to the 
failure of his bodily powers, resulting from the mental agony endured 
in the garden and the judgment hall? In his temptation too, what 
was tempted by his bodily hunger ? Was it God ? Was it the divine 
nature which had taken the place of a human soul ? The apostle James 
declares: (1:13.14) "God cannot be tempted with evil." In the face 
of a declaration so positive, and so unqualified, written too, after the 
temptation of Christ, and with a full knowledge of all its facts, we 
must believe that the intellectual and spiritual nature of Christ then 
tempted was not divine, and, therefore, must be human. 

(b) But the Scriptures not only show Christ liable to these 
mutual influences of body and mind, and the resultant temptation by 
Satan ; but they teach us that he also received the gracious influences 
of the Holy Ghost. That the body was thus affected is undoubted, for 
the body was conceived by the Holy Ghost. But the influence of the 
Spirit over the soul is also taught. At the baptism of Jesus, we are 
told that "the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove 
upon him." Luke 3:22. After the baptism "Jesus, being full of the 
Holy Ghost, returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the 
wilderness." Luke 4:1. After the temptation, "Jesus returned in 
the power of the Spirit into Galilee." Luke 4:14. At Nazareth, in 
his first recorded public discourse, "he found the place where it was 
written, the Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed 
me to preach the gospel to the poor." Luke 4:17 18. "And he began 
to say unto them, This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears." 
Luke 4:21. These were certainly influences upon his soul. How 
could they have been exerted, and. why so exerted, if that soul was 
the divine nature ? what need could divinity have for consecration, 
for grace ? what need to be led, or, as Mark expresses it, to be driven 
into the wilderness? How could a divine being lack in that which 



Abstract of Theology. 306 

constituted his divinity? That the wants of the body might be sup- 
plied is not strange. The body is human, but, if he had no human 
soul, what was it that the Holy Ghost influenced? 

(c) The Scriptures, however, do not represent Christ as receiving 
aid from a divine person only. At the close of the temptation angels 
came, and ministered to him. It may be said that this was only to 
the body ; but it is doubtful if it were of the body only, for much of 
his temptation was mental. But, certainly, it was the agony of the 
spirit of Christ, and not of the body, which the angel in Gethsemane 
was sent to relieve. 

(d) We have also such action of Christ as is not consistent with 
the idea that he had no human soul. We find instances of such 
intellectual, and spiritual restraint, limit, and subjection as cannot be 
true of God. 

The declaration that Christ marvelled at the unbelief of certain 
persons is perfectly intelligible, when spoken of a human soul ; but 
not, when ascribed to the mind of Deity. So also Luke's statement 
that "Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God 
and man." Also, that other assertion of Christ, so plainly and 
distinctly made, of his ignorance of the time of the final judgment, 
can be comprehended as possible only of his human soul, to which 
had not been imparted the knowledge which he must have possessed 
as God. 

What shall be said also of his subjection to his parents after the 
dispute with the doctors in the temple ? Was it only bodily sub- 
jection ? What does exclusively bodily subjection mean? Is it not 
the mind, and the heart, that yields obedience, and submits to 
authority? What, then, was it that was thus subject? Was it his 
divine nature ? Was it God himself? Can God be thus subjected to 
a creature. Yet, if Christ had no human soul, there were then at 
Nazareth two human beings, to whom the infinite and omnipotent 
God, the Ruler of the universe, was subject in his real divine nature, 
giving them reverence and obedience, recognizing in them an official 
superiority, and submitting to their will. 

(e) HoiV account for Christ's prayers, if he had no human soul. 
Were they only prostrations of his body by the indwelling divine 
nature, or were they the utterances of a soul oppressed with heavy 
burdens, delighting in converse with God, and, knowing that there is a 
place for prayer, seeking and rejoicing in the privilege of offering it. Is 
that soul, God? or is it the man, Christ Jesus, lifting up the voice of 
supplication to his divine Father? 



307 Abstract of Theology. 

These prayers too, are for himself; not for others only ; most 
frequently for himself. See a signal instance in Gethsemane. He 
proposes to withdraw for prayer with three of his disciples, telling 
them that his soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death. Mark tells us 
that this was because "he began to be sore amazed and to be very 
heavy.'* "He went forward a little and fell on the ground and prayed 
that, if it were pjssible, the hour might pass from him." He returned 
"and again he went away, and prayed, and spake the same words." 
He did this three times. Is this not human action ? What is there here 
befitting, or possible to a merely divine intelligence, or spirit? If his 
were a human soul, how otherwise would he have acted ? But, if 
divine, what reality could there be in these emotions, what need could 
he have? what comfort, what strength could he gain in such an act? 
Upon the supposition of a human soul, the presence of that strength- 
ening angel is accounted for, but, how explain the strength which any 
creature, however exalted, can give to the Almighty Creator ? 

(f ) The very language of Scripture as to the condition of his soul 
in that hour of trial, is conclusive. To the expression, just quoted, 
may be added his prayer, that if it were possible, the hour might pass 
from him; also his petition, "take away this cup from me." "My 
soul is troubled," he exclaims, "and what shall I say? Father save 
me from this hour ; but, for this purpose, came I to this hour, Father 
glorify thyself." "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me." 
What have we here, but trouble, and anguish, and doubt, and fear, 
and trust, and desire of release, and yet full resignation ? Are these 
characteristics of a divine mind? or do we not see here the complete 
humanity of Christ revealed for our comfort, and assurance ? For 
what other purpose the record of these facts ? Can God be honoured 
by showing his divine nature thus racked, and agonized, in the per- 
formance of that great work which it is claimed must be done by God 
alone. Surely, it is the humanity of the Saviour that is thus revealed, 
even before the final agony and triumph. The proof that this same 
person is God, is not lacking. It is indeed the Son of God, who thus, 
in human soul, and body, is doing the work. But, it is his human 
soul, not his divine nature, that thus pleads, and shrinks, and fears, and 
which still willingly submits, resolves to press on, is strengthened by 
God's messenger, and, again, confident in God, goes forward with 
sublime self-devotion to the cross. The distance between this, and 
God, is infinite ; this soul, the creature, the finite, the fearful, the 
mutable, the suffering, the trusting, the dying; and him, the creator, 
the infinite, the support of those who trust, the immutable, who can- 



Abstract of Theology. 308 

not suffer, who cannot die. The acts due to the divine nature are 
marked, and characteristic, and so also are those of the human nature. 
While we look at the former, we must say, this is God; none but He 
can perform such acts, can possess such attributes, can be called such 
names. Equally, while we look at the latter, we must say, this is man. 
None, but man can thus suffer, can thus be limited, can thus pray. 
The very nature of God forbids that He should change, that He should 
be limited, that He should be dependent, that He should be affected 
by anything outside of Himself, that He should be ignorant of any 
future event. 

Christ, therefore, had a human soul, as well as a human body. To 
deny this, and to assert that the divine nature became his soul, we 
must deny the unity of God, which establishes the undivided nature 
of His essence, and the perfection of God, which makes Him unchange- 
able, and omniscient, and independent, and impassible ; and we must 
assert, when Scripture presents him amid intellectual, and spiritual 
experiences, which are foreign to God, but are of the nature 
of the human soul, that those were not the experiences of a 
human soul, but of Divinity itself. If we thus deny that the names, 
attributes, acts, and experiences, natural to a human soul, are proof of 
complete humanity, we need not be surprised that others deny that 
he was God, however, abundantly the Scriptures ascribe to him divine 
names, attributes, and acts. 

V. There was but one person in the two natures. 

We have not here a God and a man ; but we have one who is God, 
and who also is man ; and who, being thus one person, unites in him- 
self, through these two natures, the many exactly opposite character- 
istics needed for his work. Despite the contradictory character of his 
natures, the personality is but one. That in him which we call I, the 
myself which marks individuality, that, in which he was in the God- 
head, not the Father, nor the Spirit, was common to both natures. 
With the divine nature, however, it is inseparably, necessarily, 
eternally and essencially united; for that nature cannot change, nor 
assume new relations ; not even doing so, when the divine person, 
which subsists in it, assumes humanity. But, with the human nature, 
the personality was associated voluntarily and separably, though 
permanently ; the human nature having been created for that purpose, 
and assumed by the divine person of his own will, in the fulness of 
time. Hence our Lord invariably uses the word "I" whether in his 
human, or divine nature ; or in both; whether speaking of himself as 
Son of God, or as Son of man, or as the Messiah; and whether referring 



309 Abstract of Theology. 

to his human actions, and emotions, or to his divine works, and attri- 
butes, or his official work as Mediator. 

But, as Christ assumed no additional personality to that which he 
had before the incarnation, and, as personality in man is certainly 
essential, the question arises : Did he thus really become a man ? Is 
this being made like unto his brethren ? 

(a) To this it may replied, that if the Scriptures represent this as all 
that was done, and yet teach that Christ became man, that teaching 
is sufficient ; we need no further testimony. God knows what is essential 
to the constitution of man. 

(b) But consider the difficulty thus presented. It is said that to 
be completely a man, Christ must also be a human person. Granted; 
but is his person not a human person so far as respects humanity 
alone, just as it is a divine person so far as respects divinity alone? 
Does individuality acquire character separated from the nature which 
belongs to it ? Would Christ be any longer divine if separated from 
his divine nature? If he were to cease from his incarnation, would 
he be any longer a man? What is personality but individual existence, 
and what gives it character, as human, angelic, or divine, except the 
nature in which it inheres? 

(c) Within the same race too what constitutes personality ? Is it 
the continued retention unchanged of the same identical portion of the 
common nature, the same body and soul. Science teaches constant 
change in the body leaving not a particle now of what existed years 
ago. While the soul cannot thus be measured, experience teaches us 
that great changes occur even here ; in its capacities, emotions, habits, 
tendencies, and in numerous other respects. Yet, amid all, the 
personality remains unchanged. Newton was the same person in 
maturity as when a babe. 

(d) Even the moral nature undergoes change without the change 
of personality, as shown in the difference in Adam before and after the 
fall, and in Paul at Stephen's martyrdom, and when he exclaimed in 
contemplation of martyrdom, "I am now ready to be offered.'' 

(e) Nor is it destroyed by -actual separation from a part of the 
nature which belongs to it. The thief in Paradise was the same 
person to whom Christ spoke peace, though he had left his body 
hanging on the cross. The saints with Christ are the same persons 
who once dwelt on earth in bodies now mouldered into dust. 

(f) It is recognized as existing unimpaired, even in a state of 
utterly unconscious connection, as in a senseless condition produced 



Abstract of Theology. 310 

by outward pressure on the skull, or by the use of chloroform, and other 
anaesthetics; if this be not also the condition of healthy slumber. 

If these are facts, why may not a person who possesses one nature 
assume another also, and yet be as truly a person in that nature as 
any others who possess it ? 

(g) But some one may object that the difficulty arises, in the case 
of Cnrist, from the union in the one person of two natures essentially 
different; in one of which Christ had before existed, and with which he 
is essentially united, while the other is only assumed in time, and 
that too voluntarily. 

But this finds sufficient analogy in the twofold nature united in 
ordinary human persons. Personality here exists inseparably from the 
soul, separably from the body. This is evident when at death the person- 
ality is with the soul in the presence of God, not at all with the body 
in the corruption of the grave. 

It is true that we cannot speak of these two elements of our nature 
as separated from each other as widely as humanity, and divinity; yet 
how vast is the distance between matter, and spirit ; so vast, indeed, 
as to be only surpassed by that between the finite, and the infinite. 

It is also true that we cannot speak of such essential union between 
the human soul, and its personality, as we can between Christ, and his 
divine nature. Yet, we have reason to believe the union so complete, 
that, from the beginning of the soul's existence, throughout all eternity, 
there shall be no separation. 

Upon no grounds, then, can it be asserted that the absence of a 
separate personality for Christ's human nature, made Jesus in any 
respect not like unto his brethren. Scripture affirms, and reason 
supports the idea, that the same person, existing and operating, we 
know not how, but according to the nature of God, was truly God ; 
and, also, existing in human nature, and operating as we do through 
its conscious relations to the real body, and human soul, of which that 
nature was composed, was truly man. In each nature, he knew of 
his relation to the other; as God, knowing that he was man, and as 
man, knowing that he was God. Yet the divine nature did not 
partake of that human knowledge and experience which he had of 
affliction, suffering and temptation, any more than the human nature 
experienced the conscious relation of Christ to the Father in the 
divine nature, or possessed the attributes of omniscience, or omnipre- 
sence. No limitations, or changes, which he experienced in his human 
nature, could deprive him of complete divinity ; nor could any 



311 Abstract of Theology. 

influence, nor any value, arising from the essential union of his person 
with his divine nature, take away from the absolute and real humanity 
assumed by Christ, and consciously realized by him, when he became 
man. However united, he was capable of separate experience, action, 
thought, and knowledge, and indeed of separate conscious existence 
in the two natures. Thus is it at least with us. We have separate 
experience of the sufferings and joys of our souls, and our bodies, and 
this fact removes any difficulty in believing that it was so with Christ, 
as to his divine, and human natures, when we find the Bible thus 
teaching. 

It is here, that we are to find the full explanation of the many 
seeming contradictions involved in what is taught us of the person 
and work of Christ. So intimate is the union of the one person with 
two such distinct natures, that we cannot always separate what Christ 
says of himself, as God, from what is said of himself, as man. This, how- 
ever, may puzzle us in interpreting the word of God, but not in har- 
monizing its statements. But, without this doctrine, the word of God 
cannot be made to agree with itself. When, however, we remember 
that, though truly divine, he is human, and that because of the one 
person, all that he does in either nature, may be as fully said, to be 
done by him, as though he had no other, we see the Scripture state- 
ments fall beautifully, and regularly, into their respective ranks, and 
in that twofold unity, each receives its full force. It is thus that he, 
who is said to fill the universe, was contained in the womb of Mary ; 
that he, whose are the cattle upon a thousand hills, felt the pangs of 
famishing hunger ; that he, who made the world, had not where to 
lay his head ; that he, who had given to the fig tree its fruit, and 
knew what it was bearing, came to it, if, haply, he might find any- 
thing thereon ; that he, to whom as God are known all things from 
the foundation of the world, yet offered up fervent prayers, with agony 
and strong supplication, not for others only, but chiefly for himself, 
and also declared that he knew not the judgment day ; that he, who, 
as God, had given salvation to men before his incarnation, because of 
the certainty of the work he would accomplish, yet, as man, approached 
with shrinking, and perhaps with fear of failure in his work, praying 
the Father that the cup might pass from him. And, hanging upon 
the cross, how amazing the mystery of contradiction ! As God, he 
enjoys supreme felicity in the unchanged blessedness of his divine 
nature. As man, he is in vital agony both of body and soul. As 
God, the eternal outflowings of the mutual love of the Father, and of 
the Spirit, and of Himself, the Eternal Son, continue to bestow 



Abstract of Theology. 312 

unabated mutual bliss. As man, he is the victim of the Father's 
wrath, which, because of the sin upon him, culminates in that Father's 
withdrawal amid the agonizing cry of the Son, my God, my God, why 
hast thou forsaken me ? With a loud cry the mortal man dies, but 
the eternal life of God remains unchanged. 

The full statements of the Scriptures on this subject may be thus 
expressed : 

1. There is one God, in three persons, distinct in personality, but 
undividedly, and unchangeably the same in essence and nature. 

2. We may speak of a divine person, but not of a divine nature. 
We must say the divine nature. 

3. A divine person may, therefore, become incarnate, and yet the 
incarnation be not of the whole Godhead, for the persons are distinct ; 
but the divine nature cannot, because, as common to all, its incarn- 
ation would be that of the whole Godhead. 

4. It was a person of this Godhead, the Son, the Word, who so 
united to himself human nature, as to become a person in that nature, 
a man. 

5. In this union he assumed all that constitutes a man. The fact, 
that he had no other personality, than such as had always subsisted 
in the divine nature, does not make him an impersonal man. It only 
forbids the idea of an additional personality exclusively in the human 
nature. 

6. This human nature was assumed because necessary to the work 
of salvation, it being impossible that a being, only divine, could 
undergo the experience necessary to redeem man. 

7. In its assumption the divine nature of Christ was wholly un- 
changed, and the human nature still remained purely human. 

8. The nature of personality, however, allows a most vital union 
of the two natures in his one person. 

9. Thus uniting in himself God and man, Christ suffered. 

10. There was here, therefore, no participation of the divine 
nature in the suffering. Such participation would involve actual 
suffering of that nature. 

11. But there was this connection of God, even of the undivided 
divine essence that he who thus suffered, subsists eternally and 
essentially in that essence, and is God. 



313 Abstract of Theology. 

12. Yet, intimate as is the connection of the two natures, they are 
not merged in each other, nor does either of them lose its separate 
conscious existence, nor the possession of those peculiarities which 
make the one divine, and the other human. It is one person, truly 
God, and truly man ; as much God, as though not man; as much man, 
as though not God. The human can add nothing to the divine, except 
that it gives to the person that is divine, the means of suffering for, 
and sympathizing with us. The divine adds to the human, only, that 
it gives to him, that is thus man, that dignity, and glory, and power, 
which enable him to perform the work of salvation, and to give to that 
work an inestimable value. 

Another form of expression of the Scripture facts may also be 
given. 

1. God is one in nature, essence, and being ; therefore, there is 
but one God, one divine nature. 

2. God is three in person, Father, Son, and Spirit. Hence in the 
one undivided divine nature subsist three persons. 

3. One of these persons (the Son) and one only (not the Father, 
and Spirit also) became man. It was not the three persons that 
became man ; therefore not. the divine nature which is common to the 
three, but one person only. God, therefore, was manifest in the 
flesh, not because the Godhead, or the divine nature became flesh, but 
because the Son, who is God because he subsists in the divine nature, 
became flesh. 

4. In becoming man, he still remained God, because he still con- 
tinued to subsist in the divine nature. 

5. In becoming man, he became as truly man, as he is truly God, 
because he assumed a true human nature in both its forms, body and 
soul, and subsisted in it as really, as he did in the divine nature. 

6. As it was the same person, who became man as well as God, 
there were not two persons, one divine, and one human, but one at 
the same time divine and human. 

7. This one person, therefore, had by virtue of his divine nature 
all divine experience, and by virtue of his human nature, all human 
experience, thinking, willing, and purposing as God, and exercising all 
the divine attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, 
&c, and thinking, willing, and purposing as man, with limited 
powers, and limited knowledge, subject to temptation, suffering, 
doubts, and fears. 



Abstract of Theology. 314 

8. This one person was, therefore, able to suffer and bear the 
penalty of man's transgression, because, being of man's nature-, he 
could become man's representative, and could also endure such suf- 
fering, as could be inflicted upon nun ; yet, being God, he could give 
a value to such suffering, which would make it an equivalent not to 
one man's penalty, but to that of the whole race. 

9. All the difficulties in the way of believing these things to be true 
and possible, are removed by the analogy which is seen in the two- 
fold nature of man, in which appears a likeness to that union of 
two natures in one person thus taught in the Scriptures of the Son of 
God in his becoming man. 



Abstract of Theology. 316 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE XXVII. 



The Offices of Christ. 

Three offices are ascribed by the Scriptures to Christ, those of 
prophet, priest, and king. 

I. Christ as Prophet. 

This word is to be taken in its wider sense of teacher. 

It is frequently confined in common language to one who foretels 
future events, But it literally means one who speaks for another, 
and merely denotes teaching. Thus Moses is spoken of as a prophet, 
and Christ was foretold as a prophet who should be like unto Moses> 

It is in connection with this that the term Logos, or Word, applied 
to Christ in the 1st chapter of John is appropriate. 

With the office of teacher, Christ united, as was common with the 
prophets, the prediction of future events, and the working of miracles. 
But the office of teacher was his especial work as prophet. 

This work is discharged in the following ways : 

1. In the personal revelations which he made to our first parents, 
to the patriarchs, and others of their day, to Moses and the people of 
God in the wilderness, and to various others, as Manoah, the children 
in the furnace, &c, before the days of his incarnation. These were 
made in appearances of human form, in the burning bush, in the pillar 
of cloud and fire, in the Shechinah, &c, &c. 

2. In the inspired revelations which he made through holy men 
of old, who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost ; of a portion 
of which the Old Testament Scriptures are composed. 

3. While on earth in his incarnation. 



317 Abstract of Theology. 

(1) personally as, (a) he set forth by his own acts the divine 
attributes, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, eternity of 
existence, &c, and (b) as he exhibited God's love for man, His hatred 
of sin, and His love of holiness and righteousness in the work of 
man's salvation. 

(2) By his instructions, as he taught (a) in words to his disciples 
and others, what he exhibited in his person, as to the matters above 
stated, and (b) the truths relative to the kingdom he was to establish, 
its nature, its subjects, the relations they should bear to each other, 
to him and the Father, their future destiny and glory; as well as the 
condition and fate of those who should reject him. 

4. By the instructions he gave through his apostles and other 
inspired men after his ascension. 

5. By the revelation of himself in the lives and characters of his 
true disciples in all ages. 

6. By the instructions given through his preached word in all ages. 

7. By the revelations of glory he shall make to the church of first 
born ones in the world to come. 

8. By the revelation which, through these, he shall make of the 
glory of God to the universe of created intelligences. 

II. Christ as Priest. 

This office is one of divine appointment. That of Christ cor- 
responds to that of the High Priest under the Mosaic economy, and 
is foreshadowed by it. The Epistle to the Hebrews sets this forth 
very plainly and explicitly. The priesthood of Christ, however, varies 
from that of the High Priest in several particulars. Christ's priest- 
hood is perpetual, is in one person, without predecessor or successor, 
making one offering, once for all, an offering actually, not symbolically 
effective, deriving value not from appointment alone, but from its 
nature also. In this case also the victim is the same person as the 
High Priest. Consequently Christ's office as priest is to be contem- 
plated in the twofold aspect of priest and victim. 

1. As Priest, he offers up the sacrifice laying it upon the altar of 
oblation, and, through it, appeasing the wrath of God, making recon- 
ciliation between God and man, and securing, in its proper present- 
ation, the removal of guilt and punishment from man. 

As Priest, he also intercedes with God for pardon, or justifi- 
cation, or other blessings for all for whom he died, in all the respects 
in which his death is available for each. 



Abstract of Theology. 318 

The first of these priestly offices was discharged upon earth, the 
second is discharging in heaven. It does not cease with his life on 
earth, but he is represented as continuing as an everliving High Priest 
to make intercession for us, Heb. 7:23 — 25 ; sitting down at the right 
hand of God, Acts 2:33—36 ; Heb. 8:1 ; 9:24. It is not for the 
purpose ot offering the sacrifice that he is there, Heb. 9:24 — 25 ; but 
to make intercession for those, for whom the sacrifice has already been 
offered, Heb. 10:1112.14—18. 

While we are not to suppose that he is engaged in actual spoken 
prayer before God, we are also not to understand by this a mere 
influence of his sacrifice continued without further activity on his 
part, but some real activity corresponding fully to the essence of 
prayer and petition, to which is due all the blessings to which his 
people attain. 

This inter-cession is made for his people. Isaiah 53:12 and Luke 
23:34 have been adduced as passages indicating intercession which 
avails in some respects for all men. But such benefits are not the 
result of intercessory prayer, nor of Christ's atoning work, conferring 
general benefits, but they come from the necessary co-existence of the 
persons thus benefited with those to whom the resulting benefits of the 
atoning work belong. Luke 22:32; John 14:16.26; 17:9.15.20.24; 
Acts 2:33; Eph. 2:18; Heb. 2:17.18 ; Heb. 4:14— 16 ; 1 Pet, 2:5. 

2. Christ as the victim. 

(1) His qualifications. 

(a) His sinlessness ; for this position he needed to be pure, holy, 
harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and one in whom there was 
no sin. He must be a spotless Lamb. 

(b) His humanity ; that he might be of common nature with those 
for whom he died, and that he might be capable of suffering, and of 
such suffering, as man may endure. 

(c) His divinity ; that his successful prosecution of the work 
might be assured, and that his offering might have merit sufficient to 
ransom those for whom he died. 

(d) His federal relation ; that he might be a proper substitute for 
sinners, not only securing righteousness by obedience, but bearing 
and removing their guilt by making satisfaction for it. 

(2) The offering. Thus qualified he was offered up as a victim ; 
his body to the suffering which culminated in his death on the cross, 
and his soul to the anguish, due to the realized presence of imputed 
sin, to the wrath endured from God, and separation from God's favour, 
while bearing that wrath. 



219 Abstract of Theology. 

III. Christ as King. 

Christ announced to his disciples just before his ascension, "all 
power is given unto me in heaven and in earth ;" Matt. 28:18. Peter 
at Pentecost declared, "that God hath made that same Jesus, whom 
ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ; 1 ' Acts 2:36. 

Constant references had been previously made to his kingdom. It 
was not simply spoken of as the kingdom of God, and kingdom of 
heaven, but as closely connected with Christ. Luke 20:21 ; 22:29.30; 
23:42 ; John 18:36.37. 

1. Christ as the Godman is Mediatorial king. 

As Son of God he had the right of rule over the universe. Of this 
he emptied himself and became man, that he might become Mediator 
and do the work of salvation. Having become man he died on the 
cross. On this account he has been exalted, so "that at the name of 
Jesus every knee should bow, * * * and every tongue should 
confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God, the Father." Phil. 
2:6—11. Compare Acts 2:22—36, especially verse 36. "God hath 
made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both, Lord and Christ." 
Also 1 Cor. 15:24—26. 

2. Christ reigns over his spiritual kingdom, securing the final 
result of the establishment of that kingdom in the persons of all his 
people when he shall "present it to himself, a glorious church." 
Eph. 5:27. 

3. He reigns over his visible churches on earth, through the laws 
he has given, through the Spirit by which he dwells in them, by his 
providences, overruling, and controlling, and acccomplishing all his 
purposes. 

4. He rules over this world as Kino; of Kings, and Lord of Lords, 
causing all things to work together for his ends. 

5. He rules over the universe. His sway is not limited to earth. 

6. His mediatorial reign is not confined to human subjects, but 
extends also to angelic. The angels of heaven are his attendants 
and his messengers. 

7. He even rules over Satan, and his evil angels. Their exercise 
of power for evil is permitted only for a time. Even during that time 
it is controlled by Christ ; so that it is limited by his will, and is, 
therefore, truly subjected to him. 



Abstract, of Theology. 320 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE XXVIII. 



The Atonement of Christ. 

» Several prominent theories have been presented, as to the atoning 
work of Christ, and the method by which God pardons sin. 

1. The lowest of these is the Socinian. This proceeds on the 
principle that God is pure benevolence, that vindictive justice is 
incompatible with his character, and that, upon mere repentance, God 
can, and will forgive the sinner. The work of Christ, therefore, is 
regarded as one in which he simply reveals or makes known pardon 
to man. Nothing that he has done secures it, because he had nothing 
to do to this end. It was already prepared in the benevolence of God's 
nature, and is simply now made known. [Symington on the Atone- 
ment, pp. 2 and 3.] 

The advocates of this theory explain away all that the Scriptures 
say on the subject of Christ's death for us, by maintaining that his 
life and death were mere examples to us of the manner in which we 
should live and submit to God. In their view, therefore, Christ is 
merely a great teacher and a bright example. 

Some of these have even gone so far as to speak of the sacrifices of 
the ancient dispensation as things suitable only to a barbarous age, 
and so far from regarding them as types of Christ's sacrificial work, 
have looked on them as arrangements permitted only from sympathy 
for the weakness of the people, whom God ordered to offer them. 
[Nehemiah Adams, Evenings with the Doctrines, p. 197.] 



321 



Abstract of Theology. 



The objections to this theory are : 

1. It ill accords with the Scripture description of the nature of sin. 

2. It is inconsistent with other attributes of God than mercy. 

3. It is at variance with the letter and spirit of divine revelation. 

4. It is irreconcilable with the exalted nature of the mediatorial 
reward conferred on Christ. [Symington, p. 3 ] 

2. A second theory of the Atonement is that which has commonly 
been called the Middle Theory. By this is not meant, that only these 
two and one orthodox theory exist ; but, simply, that this stands between 
the theory of the Socinians, and those held by persons, who. however, 
differing from each other, are regarded as Evangelical. 

"This theory maintains that in consequence of what Christ did, a 
certain power to pardon sin, was conferred upon him." [Syming- 
ton, p. 3.] 

"This system supposes that God may pardon sin without punish- 
ment or satisfaction." 

"But that a difference should be made between innocent persons 
who have never sinned, and those thus pardoned ; that the latter may 
not boastingly suppose themselves on an equality with the former." 

"This is done by the arrangement that, instead of a full pardon, they 
shall be pardoned on repentance, for the sake of something Christ was 
to do, because of which he is entitled to intercede for them." 

(1) "This scheme is only apparently superior to the former, in 
claiming that this is done, because of what Christ has done." 

(2) "It gives a defective view of the divine character." 

(3) "It does not explain the Scripture language as to Christ's work.'' 

(4) "It fails to account for the peculiarity and severity of his suf- 
ferings." [Symington, pp. 3 and 4] 

3. A third theory of the Atonement is that of the Arminians, who 
hold that Christ died, and that for sin ; bat only in the sense that 
makes it consistent for God to offer salvation to men on the ground of 
evangelical obedience, and not of perfect legal obedience. 

This theory teaches a general atonement without any application of 
it on the part of God. Connected with the doctrine of sufficient grace 
to each man, it supposes that the individual does, or does not exercise 
faith, and obedience, and thus secures eternal life or loses it. 

The objections to this theory are : 

(1) "That it gives an iudefinitive conception of what Christ did. 
Either it involves no satisfaction to divine justice and to the law, or 



Abstract of Theology. 322 

it implies universal satisfaction. In the first case it dishonours God, 
in the second it forces us to hold the doctrine of universal salvation." 
What is meant by the expression, that "he is faithful and just to forgive 
us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness,'' if God is not 
justly under obligation, for what Christ did, to give salvation to all 
for whom he died ? 

(2) If it be said that the object was simply to make salvation pos- 
sible for all, the reply is that this is not what the Scriptures represent. 
Theyspeak positively of salvation asprocured, notthemeans ofsalvation, 
and of certain salvation, not possible salvation. "The effects of Christ's 
death are spoken of in Scripture as reconciliation and justification. 
Rom. 5:10; Eph. 2:16; remission of sins, Eph. 1:7; peace, Eph.2:14; 
deliverance from wrath, 1 Thess. 1:10; from death, Heb. 2:14; from 
the curse of the law, Gal. 3:13; from sin," 1 Pet. 1:1.8. [Hodge's 
Outlines p. 314, 1st Edition.] We are spoken of as justified when 
ungodly. 

(3) This view of the Atonement is utterly incompatible with the 
Scripture doctrines of Innate Corruption, Regeneration, Election, 
Justification, Adoption, and Sanctification. Every proof of the true 
doctrine on these points is an argument against it. 

(4) This theory makes it possible, that Christ should have died 
in vain. 

(5) This theory makes salvation partly of God, and partly of man, 
in the most objectionable form. It represents God as permitting 
Christ to die that the demands of the law may be lowered. 

4. A fourth theory is the Lutheran, which teaches that Christ's 
death was intended to make such a satisfaction to the justice of God 
that he could offer salvation to all that believe in him. 

The objection to this theory is that by rejecting the doctrine of 
Election it omits a part of the truth. The statement, as made, is not 
opposed to the views usually held by the orthodox. Salvation is thus 
offered to all, and offered because satisfaction for sin has been made 
to the justice of God. But for whom is this salvation? They say, as 
we do, for those that shall believe. And hence the question between 
us is, who will believe, and how will this faith be effected? The 
doctrine of Election teaches that they shall believe whom God hath 
chosen, for whom He sent Christ, for whom Christ died ; and shall 
believe as the result of the gracious influences of the Spirit purchased 
by Christ's work. 



323 Abstract of Theology. 

5. A fifth theory is what is commonly called the Governmental 
Theory of the Atonement. 

Those who hold this theory maintain that God cannot consistently 
forgive sin upon mere repentance and faith ; bat that the necessity for 
its punishment does not arise from the nature of God, and His 
abhorrence of sin ; wherefore there is no principle in Him which 
requires all sin to be punished for itself alone; but from the necessity 
which exists for maintaining his moral government in the universe. 
"They therefore regard the sufferings of Christ as intended to make a 
moral impression upon the universe by their display of God's deter- 
mination to punish sin, and thus to make the forgiveness of sin 
consistent with the good government of the universe." [Hodge's 
Outlines, p. 301, 1st Edition.] 

The objections to this theory are : 

1. The nature which it ascribes to sin. It does not regard it 
essential that all sin should be punished. Therefore sin does not in 
itself intrinsically deserve punishment. 

2. It places the punishment of sin on a wrong basis, namely, the 
good of the universe as involved in the moral government of God ; 
and not because it deserves punishment as sin. 

3. God is here beheld, not as a righteous judge taking vengeance 
on the violators of his law, nor as a rightful king punishing those who 
have rejected his authority, but simply as a benevolent being entirely 
regardless of his own nature, or of the difference between right and 
wrong, punishing some msn for the good of others. 

4. According to this theory the necessity for punishing sin rests, 
not in its own nature, but because there are more created beings in 
the universe than those who have sinned. Had God created one 
man, or one angel only, and had that angel sinned, there could have 
been no reason, either in the broken law, or in the dishonour to God, 
for his punishment, unless other beings were also to be created. 

5. This theory claims no support from Scripture ; but is presented 
simply as a philosophical explanation, to avoid the difficulties supposed 
to exist in the ordinarily received doctrine of the necessity of punish- 
ment by God. 

6. It is opposed by Scripture in every particular involved in it ; 
the nature of sin ; the desert of punishment ; the vengeance of God 
against the violator of his law ; the fact that God acts of his own will, 
and does not draw the reasons of his action from without ; the teaching 
of Scripture about the priestly office of Christ, the work he has done, 



Abstract of Theology. 324 

the position he bore to us as being made sin for us ; the ground of our 
redemption; the causes of condemnation and a hundred other particu- 
lars, which show that the Scriptures are not merely not silent on 
this subject, but that the contrary doctrine lies at the very basis of 
all its instructions. 

6. The sixth theory of the Atonement is that which declares it to be 
general, but asserts that it is limited in its application. According 
to this theory, the work of atonement was not wrought out by Christ 
for the elect as such, nor for the church, either as foreseen, or 
designed to be composed of those to be saved ; but for sinners, as 
sinners. The work of atonement had nothing to do with the persons 
to whom it was to be applied considered as an atonement, but only 
had respect to men as guilty sinners in God's sight. The work to be 
accomplished was precisely what would have been, had there been no 
election, no church to be established, no work of grace to be wrought 
on the heart, but each person left to act in its reception, or rejection, 
as he should choose. 

It is in its application only that it has respect to Election, and 
thus is it made particular, not because in time it is applied to certain 
persons, but because it was designed in eternity to be thus applied. 
The application itself, however, involves the design of the atonement ; 
but, simply, that which is made in respect to each individual, when, by 
regeneration and faith, he is vitally made partaker of Christ. It does 
not include the sovereign pleasure of God in the purpose to apply. 
This is involved in election. 

The most distinguished advocate of this theory is Andrew Fuller, 
a man of the clearest perceptions, and of remarkable power of precise 
statement. His views on the subject appear in the Conversation on 
Particular Redemption, vol. 2nd, p. 692 to 698 of the Philadelphia 
edition of his works. He has here sought to establish a theory not 
substantially different from that of the older Calvinists, but after all, 
one which has merely the appearance of being better. The distinction 
on which he attempts to establish it, however, appears not to be 
correct. The following extracts from his discussion will show his 
position. The disputants are Peter and James; the latter presents 
the views of Fuller. 

Peter gives the theory as he has understood it thus : "The particu- 
larity of the Atonement consists in the sovereign pleasure of God with 
regard to its application." 



325 Abstract of Theology. 

James replies: I should rather say "the particularity of Redemption 
consists in the sovereign pleasure of God with regard to the application 
of the Atonement, that is with regard to the persons to whom it shall 
be applied." 

Again says James : "You say the position in question places the 
paticularity of Redemption in its application. Whence, if you will 
recollect yourself, you will find thac it places it in the Sovereign 
pleasure of God with regard to application." 

Again Peter : "But, have you ever made use of the term appli- 
cation so as not to include the divine intention.'' 

James : "I am not aware of having done so." 

Again : He sums up by saying that his "object in the distinction 
has been merely to distinguish what the death of Christ is sufficient 
for, from what it was the design of the Father and Son to effect 
through it." 

Again : "I do not consider particular redemption as being so much 
a doctrine of itself as a branch of the great doctrine of Election." 

Atonement and Redemption are both effects of Christ's death, but 
in such order as that one is the consequence of the other. 

Again : In the previous conversation on substitution he says, p. 690 ; 

"Concerning the death of Christ, if I speak of it irrespective of the 
purpose of the Father, and the Son, as to the objects who should be 
saved by it, referring merely to what it is in itself sufficient for, and 
declared in the gospel to be adapted to, I should think I answered 
the question in the Scriptural way by saying, it was for sinners as 
sinners. But if I have respect to the purpose of the Father in giving 
his Son to die and to the design of Christ in laying down his life, I 
should answer, it was for the elect only." 

This theory agrees with the ordinary theory in : 

1. Regarding satisfaction for sin necessary. 

2. Recognizing that this has been made by Christ. 

3. Claiming that the value of Christ's death is sufficient for the 
world. 

4. Declaring that its benefits accrue to some only. 

5. Maintaining that this limitation is because of God's purpose, 
and not because of action on the part of man. 

It differs from it in that it makes Redemption and Atonement two 
different works, instead of the same work viewed in two different 
aspects. The older doctrine regards the atonement as a reconciliation 
of sinners to God, but of sinners, who are thus redeemed from the 



1 



Abstract of Theology. 326 

condition of bondage and misery in which they had been. Atone- 
ment, therefore, is reconciliation, Redemption is deliverance ; but of 
the same persons by the same work, and at the same time, each being 
involved in the same decree. The new theory makes atonement an 
act of reconciliation by Christ's death, not of the persons redeemed 
alone, but of the whole world, and this, as the result of a general 
decree to send Christ to reconcile the world to God. Redemption 
comes under the decree of Election which has nothing to do with re- 
conciliation ; and, by it, only certain persons have the benefit of the 
reconciliation thus effected, not because of their own acceptance or 
faith, but because God gives to them all the advantages of the work 
of atonement and withholds them from all others. 
The objections to this view are : 

1. That it represents the whole world as actually reconciled to 
God by Christ's death. If so, on what ground is this reconciliation 
destroyed. The doctrine of universal salvation is therefore involved. 

2. If this is not the view, then, when the Scriptures speak of our 
reconciliation to God, nothing more is meant than that a mere mode 
of reconciliation has been arranged, so that the divine justice has been 
simply so satisfied that a medium of acceptance with God has been 
provided. But, if there is merely a medium of acceptance provided, 
how can men be spoken of as actually reconciled to God ? In what 
proper sense can Christ be said to have borne our sins, and to have 
been wounded for our transgressions, if his act was merely the arrange- 
ment of a medium for salvation? Christ, to make atonement, must 
have been substituted in our place, borne our sins, had imputed to 
him our trespasses, and the chastisement of our peace must have been 
upon him. But, if so, a true atonement must have been made. It 
could not have been the mere arrangement of a medium of salvation. 
It must have been salvation itself. And, if for all, all must be saved. 

3. This theory is inconsistent with one of the facts admitted by its 
advocates ; that the death of Christ was a penal sacrifice. Penalty and 
guilt have no respect to sin in the abstract, but only to it as associated 
with sinners. It the work of atonement simply wrought out a medium 
of access, then was it a mere general exhibition of God's hatred of sin, 
having no respect to particular persons. On the governmental theory 
that such an arrangement was necessary simply to display before the 
universe the evil of sin, this idea of atonement might be allowed. 
But on the theory of satisfaction to justice, the atonement must be 
made by a penal sacrifice. 



327 Abstract of Theology. 

4. This only apparently has any advantage over the usual older 
Calvinistic theory. 

1. It confines salvation to the elect. 

2. It gives salvation as the result of God's action. 

3. It ascribes no greater value to Christ's death. The older theory, 
except as held by those who gave it a commercial character, taught 
that what Christ needed to do for one man, would have been sufficient 
for all. 

4. It, with that theory, ascribes the limitation to God's purpose; 
the one holding the purpose in actual salvation ; the other the purpose 
in the application of salvation. 

5. God can under either, with equal sincerity, make the gospel 
offer to all. (1) Each holds that a sufficient basis for salvation exists 
if God had chosen to extend it. (2) Each holds that God knows that 
only those chosen by him will accept. (3) Each teaches that this 
acceptance is due to special grace. (4) Each maintains that it was 
God's purpose to withhold that special grace ; a purpose formed in 
eternity and recognized as existing when the sacrifice was offered, and 
w T hen the offer of salvation is made. 

6. This seems at first more in. accordance with the expressions of 
general atonement made in the Scriptures; but it appears on examination 
that the act there spoken of cannot be limited to the meaning here 
given, and that either these passages teach universal salvation, or have 
a meaning, as used by Christ and his Apostles, which does not involve 
the idea of such universality as includes every one of the posterity of 
Adam. 

7. This theory, like all others of a general atonement, lies under 
the difficulty that it extends reconciliation, or a medium of recon- 
ciliation, to persons, who by death have been confirmed in destruction, 
or it shuts off from its benefits all who have died before Christ. The 
theory of limited atonement recognizes all who are included in it as 
saved by virtue of it. The virtue secured, therefore, is applied to all to 
whom it belongs. The fact that the Lamb was slain before the foundation 
of the world, or, in other words, the certainty of Christ's death, makes 
salvation beforehand possible, and permits God to bestow it. The 
death of Christ only fulfils what has thus been relied on. But in the 
case of a general atonement made for the whole race, we have Christ 
dying, not simply for those who shall not be saved, but for those who 
are alreadv damned. 



Abstract of Theology. 328 

8. This theory is incompatible with those expressions of Scripture 
which speaks of Christ's death as though it. were confined to the elect. 

John 10:11.15.26—28. "I am the good shepherd; the good 
shepherd giveth his life for the sheep, * * * and I lay down my 
life for the sheep, * * * but ye believe not because ye are not of 
my sheep, as I said unto you. * * * My sheep hear my voice, 
and I know them, and they follow me, and I give unto them eternal 
life ; and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out 
of my hand." 

(1) The sheep here are those to whom he will give eternal life. 

(2) They are those for whom he lays down his life. 

(3) They are not all, because he tells those who were rejecting him 
that they were not his sheep. 

(4) The whole language used implies that the salvation of the 
sheep alone is the object for which his life is laid down. 

John 17:9.19. "I pray not for the world, but for them which thou 
hast given me. * * * For their sakes I sanctify myself that they 
also may be sanctified through the truth." 

Rom. 5:8.9. "But God commendeth his love towards us, in that' 
while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, 
being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath 
through him." 

Here those for whom Christ died are plainly declared to be thus 
justified by his blood, and the certainty ot salvation from wrath is 
maintained. 

See also the passage in Rom. 8th chapter, where the Apostle uses 
the language of exultation. In verse 32. "He that spared not his 
own Son ; but delivered him up for us all ; how shall he not, with 
him, also, freely give us all things ?'' 

(1) For us all : here is the true extent of the atonement. The all, 
are those who are truly saved. 

(2) Those, for whom he has thus been delivered, feel assured that 
he will give also all grace, so that their salvation is secure. But this 
is true only of the elect ; therefore, for them alone and not for others, 
was Christ "not spared." 

Verse 34. "Who is he that condemneth. It is Christ that died." 
This is the sufficient answer as the apostle teaches ; but according to 
the theory of Fuller it is the application of Christ's death, and not the 
death itself, that removes condemnation. 



329 



Abstract of Theology. 



Eph. 5:25. "Husbands love your wives even as Christ loved the 
church, and gave himself for it." 

Titus 2:14. "Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us 
from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous 
of good works." It is for the "us" who compose this peculiar people, 
that Christ'has gi'ven himself." 

1 Peter 5:20. The very manifestation of Christ in the world is 
said to have taken place for those "who by him do believe in God." 

The arguments in favour of this later theory are (1) that the Scrip- 
tures use expressions, which favour a general atonement, at the same 
time that they speak of a specific object in Christ's death. It is claimed 
that both, the general atonement, and the particular application are 
thus taught. 

(2) The second argument is that this will make the specific offer 
of the gospel to all appear more sincere than the other form. 

These arguments will be considered in connection with the last theory 
of atonement, commonly called the Calvinistic theory. It is that of 
Calvin and the churches which he established. It is the theory of the 
Regular Baptists of the past. No other prevailed among those who have 
held distinctively Calvinistic Baptist sentiments until the days of 
Andrew Fuller. He, because of his great ability, contributed greatly 
to the acceptance of the modification which we have just been consid- 
ering. After stating the older Calvinistic theory I will proceed to 
show that this is the Scriptural doctrine of the atonement in each of 
its particulars. I have assumed heretofore that the nature of the 
Atonement is such as is taught by this doctrine. After this proof 
we shall proceed to inquire into its extent, or whether it is general 
or particular. In that place will naturally come up the questions as 
to the true explanation of the passages which have been thought to 
teach a general atonement. 



7. The Calvinistic theory of the atonement is, that in the sufferings 
and death of Christ, he incurred the penalty of the sins of those whose 
substitute he was, so that he made a real satisfaction to the justice of 
God for the law which they had broken. On this account, God now 
pardons all their sins, and being fully reconciled to them, his electing 
love flows out freely towards them. 

The doctrine as thus taught involves the following points : 

1. That the sufferings and death of Christ were a real atonement. 

2. That in making it Christ became the substitute of those whom 
he came to save. 



Abstract of Theology. 330 

3. That as such he bore the penalty of their transgressions. 

4. That in so doing he made ample satisfaction to the demands of 
the law, and to the justice of God. 

5. That thus an actual reconciliation has been made between them 
and God. 

Each of these points will need explanation and amplification, as well 
as proof, that the precise meaning of each may be clearly ascertained. 

I. The first point to' be proved is that the death of Christ was a 
real atonement. 

By this is meant that the death of Christ was not merely a moral 
example, as say the Socinians ; that it was not. merely an arrangement 
set forth in the universe as the means of lowering the demands of the 
law, as say the Arminians ; that it was not a mere exhibition of God's 
determination to maintain his government for the benefit of His 
creatures, according to the governmental hypothesis ; but that it was 
a sacrifice for sin, the great antitype of the Mosaic sacrifices, by 
which, guilt and condemnation is taken away from those for whom he 
made it, and^they are made at one with God. The proof that this 
was the nature of Christ's act, is : 

1. That this is the generally received notion of sacrifice in all 
nations. 

2. That the earliest record of sacrifice, in the history of Cain and 
Abel, points to the idea that God had appointed a mode of expiation 
for guilt. The sacrifice of Abel was in one sense no better than that 
of Cain. Each was a gift ; but that of Abel was a sacrifice of. blood, 
in testimony of acknowledged guilt ; that of Cain merely a thank 
offering. The Lord had respect to the offering of Abel, and when 
Cain was angry, the Lord remonstrated with him, and said : "If thou 
doest well, shalt thou not be accepted ? and if thou doest not well, sin 
(a sin-offering) lieth at the door." This account establishes the fact 
that the idea of sacrifice, which thus has prevailed among all men, 
originated in early instruction by God, beginning from the time of 
our first parents. 

3. When we come, however, to look at the sacrifices of the Mosaic 
economy, we find still the same idea taught, and even more fully; 
since the type was now confined to the nation through which the 
antitype was to appear. That economy shows that the blood of 
animals was constantly offered to God ; that this, was done by His 
command as making reconciliation and atonement ; that in these offer- 
ings was always involved the idea of sin committed by the people, or 



331 Abstract or Theology. 

the individual, or the priests, or a ceremonial defilement, of the nature 
of sin, which made essential the cleansing of the altar itself or the 
persons officiating ; that, in the act of sacrifice, the hand of the indi- 
vidual, or of the elders, or of the priests was laid upon the head of the 
animal for the confession of sin upon it, that it might be made a proper 
sacrifice ; that the animal was then slam or sent away ; and that, as 
the result of all these arrangements, the forgiveness of sin followed. 

This latter idea may appear too strongly put, but it is owing to our 
overlooking the fact that the sins thus atoned for were not all the sins 
of the Israelites, but only the sins which took place in their relations, 
as individual, or as a nation, to God. The forgiveness of them involved, 
therefore, only the temporal blessings thus associated. As they were 
typical of Christ, and of a heavenly Canaan, so those who looked 
through the type to the antitype received full pardon, because of the 
offering that God was to make, and in which they trusted. In either 
case, however, there was actual remission of sins. For the national 
or individual sins, for which God had appointed this method of pardon, 
there was actual remission because of the sacrifice, and, in those who 
looked forward to Christ, and for whom, therefore, his sacrifice was 
made, there was also actual remission of the sins thus laid upon him. 

Another caution is also suggested here. We speak of the sacrifices 
of old as the means God appointed for the pardon of sin. And in like 
manner we speak of God's method of salvation, being by the death of 
Christ. But, in either case, we do not mean by the expression that 
the means of salvation alone was in the sacrifice, but salvation itself. 
The law of sacrifice was the method of God for the remission of sin, 
but the sacrifice itself secured the actual remission : so, the death of 
Christ may be contemplated as God's method of saving sinners so 
long as we are speaking of it as the arrangement or scheme devised 
by God to accomplish a certain work ; but, as itself a sacrifice, the death 
of Christ secured salvation, and not the mere means of salvation. 

4. Such, now, being the usage of the word sacrifice among all men, 
and especially in the Jewish nation, did we find merely the word sacrifice 
used in reference to Christ, we should be justified in believing that 
there was made by him a real sacrifice or atonement. If the New 
Testament or the other Scriptures said nothing of the nature of his 
work, or of its effects, we should be fully warranted in saying that, 
because it was a sacrifice, it secured an actual remission of sins by the 
shedding of his blood. Were we confined to this argument, therefore, 
we might simply show that the New Testament does speak of him as 



Abstract of Theology. 332 

the Lamb of God, as our Passover, and as having died for us, and thence 
we might argue that he has made a real atonement for us. But we 
may go much farther and show. 

5. What is actually taught of the nature of Christ's sacrificial 
death; namely, that, by it, was made an offering for sin which actually 
secured the pardon of the sinner. 

The prophets of old spake of it in this wise. 

Thus in Isaiah 53:6.7.10.11. "All we like sheep have gone astray, 



* * 



an 



d the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. 
* * * He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, * * * Yet 
it pleased the Lord to bruise him ; he hath put him to grief: when 
thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he 
shall prolong his days, * * * He shall see of the travail of his 
soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous 
servant justify many ; for he shall bear their iniquities." 

The points here are: (1.) Our sins are laid on him. (2.) He is 
afflicted. (3.) He is made an offering for sin. (4.) Thus he justifies 
many, (not all, — and why these ?) "for he shall bear their iniquities." 

Daniel 9:24.26. "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people 
and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an 
end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in 
everlasting righteousness, * * * And after threescore and two 
weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself." 

The New Testament teaching corresponds with that of the Old. 

John 1:28. The announcement of the Messiah by John shows that 
the sacrifice of Christ was the prominent work of his life. "Behold, 
the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world." The same 
announcement was made again the next day. 

John 6:51. The Saviour says, "the bread that I will give is my 
flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." 

The above are positive declarations. We must take them in the 
fulness of the declaration made. We may be able to explain the sense 
in which this is applied to the world, but of the persons here meant, 
it is distinctly declared that sin is taken away and life is given. This 
is true of other similar passages. 

Matt. 20:28. "The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but 
to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." 

Matt. 26:28. "This is my blood of the New Testament, which is 
shed for many for the remission of sins." 



333 Abstract of Theology. 

Acts 20:28. '-The church of God, (or of the Lord) which he hath 
purchased with his own blood." 

Rom. 5:10. "We were reconciled to God by the death of His Son." 

2 Cor. 5:18.19. t: And all things are of God, who hath reconciled 
us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of 
reconciliation ; To-wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world 
unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them ; and hath com- 
mitted unto us the word of reconciliation." 

Eph. 5:2. "Christ * * * hath given himself for us an offering 
and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour." 

Col. 1:14.19.22 '-In whom we have redemption through his blood, 
even the forgiveness of sins : * * * It pleased the Father that 
in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through 
the blood of the cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by 
him, I say, whether they be things on earth, or things in heaven. 
And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by 
wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh 
through death, to present you holy and unblamable and unreprov- 
able in his sight." This passage includes all the points under the 
head we are now discussing. We have here a sacrifice by Christ in 
his death, through his blood, peace is effected, and forgiveness of sins ; 
not the means, but the things themselves ; actual forgiveness, actual 
peace. 

The whole Epistle to the Hebrews is proof upon this point. 

1 Peter 1:18 — 20. "Ye know T that ye were not redeemed, &c, but 
with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and 
without spot." 

1 John 2:2. "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours 
only, but for the sins of the whole world." 

1 John 4:10. ' : God sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins/' 

The passages adduced will suffice to show that Christ's work was 
a real sacrifice; that, by his blood, he procured pardon, peace, re- 
demption, and remission of sins, for those whom he represented. 
How many or how few, these are, does not here affect the question. 
The work here done was a sacrifice and was completely accomplished. 

The proof to be given of the other points will add materially to 
the evidence of the nature of the work of Christ in this respect. 

II. In order to make this atonement Christ became the substitute 
of those whom he came to save. 



Abstract of Theology. 334 

Here, also, we may refer to the position in this respect occupied by 
the offering under the Mosaic laws, as well as to the general notion of 
sacrifice. 

The language of Job 1:1 — 5 indicates that he recognized the fact 
that substitutes might be put, and would be accepted in the place of 
those who were guilty of offences to God. And this may be taken as 
evidence of the usually received opinion before the segregation of 
Israel, as well as of that among the Gentiles, subsequent to that event. 

But the declarations of God as to the Levitical sacrifices and the 
method of their observance exhibit this more clearly. 

In the first chapter of Leviticus God gives to Moses directions, as 
to the offering of sacrifices by the people : among other things he says, 
verse 4, of the individual making the offering ; "He shall put his 
hand upon the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for 
him to make atonement for him/' 

This is the substitution of the victim. We have in Levit. 10:17, 
where Moses blames Eliazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron, for 
neglecting to eat the sin offering, the declaration of the substitution 
which took place in the priest. Christ bore both offices. 

'•Wherefore, have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, 
seeing it is most holy and God hath given it to you to bear the 
iniquity of the congregation to make atonement for them before the 
Lord." 

I have referred to both these cases to show that there was a sub- 
stitution of the priest, and one of the victim. It was in the latter 
sense that Christ bore the sins of the people and made atonement. 

The account of the scape goat, in Levit. 16:20 — 22, furnishes another 
instance of substitution, which, as another use will be made of it, is 
not referred to here at length. It is, however, a signal example of such 
a substitution, as put'an animal in the place of Israel, and made him, 
as their substitute, to bear their iniquities. 

These declarations of the substitution of the victim are numerous in 
Exodus and Leviticus, and are referred to in all the Mosaic books. 
They, therefore, made familiar to the Jewish people the notion of sub- 
stitution, and impressed upon them the need of a victim, for the making 
of atonement, who should actually stand in the place of those who 
were to be atoned for. The language of the Scriptures as to Christ, 
therefore, could not have been otherwise understood. As used by the 
Prophets, by John the Baptist, and by the inspired writers of the New 
Testament it must have been intended to make this impression, 



335 Abstract of Theology. 

which must inevitably have been produced. So much is this so, that 
the prophetic language of Isaiah, relative to Christ's sufferings, was 
felt to be so completely fulfilled in them, that almost all the language 
in the New Testament, which speaks of his atonement, is tinged by 
the expressions there used. 

Let us look at the 53rd chapter of Isaiah, then, as indicative of the 
teaching of the sacrifices, and of the work foretold to be accomplished. 

The whole chapter speaks of substitution and inflicted penalty. 
The following passages refer to substitution : 

verses 4 and 5. "Surely, he hath borne our griefs, and carried our 
sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and 
afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised 
for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him ; and 
with his stripes we are healed.'' 

verse 6. "The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." 

verse 11. "By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify 
many ; for he shall bear their iniquities." 

verse 12. "He bare the sin of many, and made intercession for 
the transgressors." 

To these prophetic passages may be added that in Dan. 9.26 : 
"Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself." 

The following passages show that the New Testament recognized 
the fulfilment of these prophecies, and that in Christ was found the 
antitype of the sacrifices of old in this respect. 

Matt. 20:28. "The Son of man came * * * to give his life a 
ransom for many." 

Matt. 26:28. "This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed 
for many for the remission of sins." 

John 11:47 — 52 gives an account of a council among the Jews, in 
which a certain remark was made by Caiaphas, which the Evangelist 
claims as a prophecy and applies to Jesus. 

See verse 49 — 52. "And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the 
high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, 
nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for 
the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he 
not of himself; but, being high priest that year, he prophesied that 
Jesus should die for that nation ; and not for that nation only, but 
that, also, he should gather together in one the children of God that 
were scattered abroad." 

Rom. 5:8. "While we were yet sinners Christ died for us." 



Abstract of Theology. 336 

Rom. 8:32. "He that spared not his .own Son, but delivered him 
up for us all." 

2 Cor. 5:21. '"He hath made him to be sin for us." 

Gal. 1:3.4. "Our Lord Jesus Christ who gave himself for our sins." 

Gal. 3:13. "Being made a curse for us." 

Eph. 5:2. "Christ also hath loved us and hath given himself for 
us, an offering and a sacrifice to God, for a sweet smelling savour." 

1. Thess. 5:9.10. "For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to 
obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ ; who died for us, that, 
whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him." 

1 Tim. 2:5 6. "For there is one God, and one mediator between 
God and men, the man Christ Jesus ; who gave himself a ransom for 
all, to be testified in due time." 

There are several questions which arise in consequence of this sub- 
stitution on the part of Christ. 

One as to the qualifications essential to it which he possessed. 

Another as to the manner in which substitution can be effected. 

Another as to the justice with which an innocent person can be put 
in the place of a guilty one. 

And yet another, whether Christ, being thus substituted, became 
personally a sinner. 

These questions belong the rather, however, to a discussion of 
imputation and are only relevant here, because that doctrine is 
implied in this doctrine of atonement. The only exception is the first. 
The second and third have already been discussed in treating of the 
representative relation of Adam and the principle of substitution 
involved in it, and in the law of sacrifices. [See pp. 273; — 278.] 

As to the fourth point it may be said that Christ is not represented 
in Scripture as made personally a sinner by substitution ; neither 
were the sacrifices of old regarded as personally obnoxious to God. 
But they were so officially; that is, in their position as substitutes ; 
and Christ became so, being made a curse for us. But this official 
substitution did not make him a sinner, but only caused him to be 
treated as such. 

The first question may be answered thus : 

1. That the possession of a human nature, such as ours, is re- 
presented in Scripture as essential to his position as substitute. 

2. The possession of a divine nature, in consequence of which he 
was a divine person, was also requisite to give an infinite value to 
his work. 



337 Abstract of Theology. 

3. It seerns also essential that he should not have been two persons, 
a divine person, and a human person ; else could not the value of the 
acts performed in his human nature have been greater than those of 
any other innocent man. It was, therefore, not the human nature of 
Christ that was substituted for us, but Christ himself; yet it was not 
Christ in his divine nature that suffered, but value was given to the 
suffering from its being the suffering of one, who also essentially 
possessed the divine nature. 

The doctrine of the Trinity lies, therefore, at the basis of that of the 
atonement, and hence the denial of the latter by all those who reject 
the former. 

4. A holy nature ; a lamb without spot or blemish. 

5. As consequent upon the possession of such a union of natures 
in himself, Christ could make a voluntary offering of himself, by which 
merit could be procured and penalty endured for others. 

6. That he should be designated by the Father to this position, 
that he might be the legal representative of his people and their 
covenant head. 

III. In so offering himself, Christ actually bore the penalty of the 
transgressions of those for whom he was substituted. 

1. This point is involved in the two that have preceded it, and con- 
sequently may be argued from the evidence afforded by them. These 
points mutually confirm each other. Thus, in bearing the penalty, he 
appears to have been substituted for us and to have been made a 
sacrifice. In being made a sacrifice, he has been substituted and has 
borne the penalty. We may, therefore, present all the proofs that Christ 
was a sacrifice, and was the substitute for our sins, as so much in 
favour of the fact that he bore the penalty of transgression. 

But we may otherwise learn from the Scriptures themselves that 
this penalty was actually borne by Christ. It is taught : 

2. In those passages in which Christ is represented as having 
borne our iniquities. The meaning of this clause is definitely fixed 
by the Scripture usage. In the following passages, this phrase is 
applied to Christ: 

Isaiah 53:6. ''The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." 
Isaiah 53; 11. "For by his knowledge shall my righteous servant 

justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." 

Isaiah 53:12. "He was numbered with the transgressors ; and he 

bare the sin of many." 



Abstract of Theology. 338 

Heb. 9:28. "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many ; 
and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time 
without sin unto salvation." 

1 Peter 2:24. "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on 
the tree." 

The following passages show that the phrase "to bear iniquity" 
means to bear the penalty of iniquity. 

Lev. 5:1. "And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and 
is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it ; if he do not utter 
it, then he shall bear his iniquity." 

Lev. 5:17. "If a soul sin and commit any of these things which 
are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the Lord ; though 
he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity." 

Lev. 7:18. "If any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings 
be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall 
it be imputed unto him that offereth it: . it shall be an abomination, 
and the soul that eatetb. of it shall bear his iniquity." 

Lev. 19:8. "Therefore every one that eateth it shall bear his 
iniquity, because he hath profaned the hallowed thing of the Lord, 
and that soul shall be cut off from among his people." 

Lev. 24:15. "And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, 
saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin." 

Numbers 14:34. "After the number of the days in which ye 
searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear 
your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of 
promise." 

Ezekiel 18:20. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall 
not bear the iniquity of the father, neither- shall the father bear the 
iniquity of the son." 

Ezekiel 44:10.12. "And the Levites that are gone away far from 
me, when Israel went astray, which went astray away from me after 
their idols; they shall even bear their iniquity." "Because they 
ministered unto them before their idols, and caused the house of 
Israel to fall into iniquity ; therefore have I lifted up my hand against 
them, saith the Lord God, and they shall bear their iniquity." [See 
Magee on the Atonement, vol. 1, pp. 200 — 220, for an able and 
learned discussion of the meaning of the phrase "bear iniquity."] 

Another class of passages shows that Christ bore the penalty of sin 
by representing him as suffering because of it, and as bearing the 
penalty attached to it. Such passages used as to an innocent person 



339 Abstract of Theology. 

show that he bore the penalty for others, but in most it is distinctly 
declared that it was for his people. 

Suffering is of three kinds: (1) Calamity or misfortune, which has 
no reference to sin ; (2) chastisement, which is designed for the im- 
provement of the sufferer ; (3) punishment or penalty, which is 
designed for satisfaction to justice. The language of Scripture shows 
that the sufferings of Christ were of the last class. 

(1) That class of passages which represents Christ as suffering 
because of our sin, or that his sufferings were connected w T ithour sins. 

The passage in Isaiah 53:4.5 is a signal example. "Surely he hath 
borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows : yet we did esteem him 
stricken, smitten of Cod, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our 
transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities : the chastisement of 
our peace was upon him ; and with his stripes we are healed." 

In accordance with this vision of the prophet we have the accounts 
given in the New Testament. 

Rom. 4:25. "Who was delivered for our offences.'' 

Heb. 13:12. "Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the 
people with his own blood, suffered without the gate." 

1 Pet. 2:24. "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on 
the tree." 

1 Pet. 3:18. "For Christ also hath, once suffered for sins, the just 
for the unjust, that he might bring us to God." 

More passages might be given were it not that the Scriptures more 
frequently state the nature of this connection, and they will be quoted 
under the succeeding class under this head. 

The second class of passages which treats of the connection of Christ's 
suffering with our sins is that which represents those sufferings as the 
penalty of our sins, or which declares that Christ bore that penalty. 

The penalty which Christ bore for us, includes all the suffering 
which he endured on our behalf. It is not confined to any one act 
of his life, but, as those sufferings culminated in the agony of the 
cross, the penalty is spoken of chiefly as borne there. His previous 
sufferings, the miseries, to which he was subjected, and the evils he 
endured, were but as the beginning, and a small beginning of the 
penalty which he there completed. 

The penalty due for our transgressions was death, the full meaning 
of which is only foreshadowed to us by the death of the body. Added 
to this is the separation from God, by reason of the moral death which 
ensued from sin, and the condition of condemnation for sin. The 



Abstract of Theology. 340 

former must be eternal, unless restoration to God is effected. The 
latter involves eternal death in its mere execution. 

Christ bore the guilt of those for whom he died, and thus it became 
fit that upon him God should inflict the penalty. 

The result has been the removal of condemnation and the recon- 
ciliation effected between us and God. In the removal of these evils 
eternal death is taken away. 

As to the death of the body, according to God's wisdom, and in a 
manner similar to his course in many other cases, the curse is made 
no longer a curse, because the sting is removed, and the death of the 
body, otherwise so intimately connected with eternal death, now 
introduces the Christian into eternal life. 

The death of Christ included the penalty in all its fulness. In it 
he offered up his body and was laid in the grave. In it the separation 
from God took place by which he was led to feel himself forsaken. 
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me," was his cry of agony. 
That his death was not eternal, as would ours have been, arose from 
the fact that in the execution of the sentence of condemnation, God 
found in him not such a victim as mere man would have been, 
unable to atone, or render full satisfaction; but one whose glorious 
nature gave infinite value to suffering, and who could feel most 
keenly, yet could bear without destruction, the wrath of God. 

The Scriptures represent just such a penalty to have been endured 
by Christ, accompanied by just such agonies. No one can read the 
accounts given by the evangelists without being impressed by the fact 
that they ascribe just such a character to his sufferings on Calvary. 

But, independent of their general statements, we have the class of 
passages just referred to, that in which Christ's suffering is represented 
as the penalty of our transgressions. 

In Zechariah 13:7 we have that remarkable prophecy which can be 
applied to Christ as it has never been applied to any save Christ. 
"Awake, sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is 
my fellow saith the Lord of hosts." The context speaks of a purging 
of Jerusalem, out of the trial of which a third part shall be brought, 
and the means by which this is done is the smiting of the shepherd, 
and the scattering of the sheep, through which action they are refined, 
and he says, "they shall call on my name, and I will hear them : I will 
say, It is my people : and they shall say, The Lord is my God." 

Isaiah 53:5. u The chastisement of our peace was upon him; 
and with his stripes we are healed." The latter part of this verse is 
quoted in 1 Peter 2:24. 



341 Abstract of Theology. 

Isaiah 53:8. "For the transgression of my people was he stricken."' 

verse 9. Declares his perfect innocence and then 

verse 10 says : "Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him ; he hath put 
him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he 
shall 'see his seed, &c." 

Matt. 20:28. "Even as the Son of man came, * * * to give 
his life, a ransom for many." 

Rom. 5:10. "For if, when we were enemies, w T e were reconciled to 
God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall 
be saved by his life." 

Rom. 6:10. "For in that he died, he died unto sin once." 

1 Cor. 15:3. "For I delivered unto you, first of all, that which I 
also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the 
Scriptures." 

2 Cor. 5:14.15. "For the love of Christ constraineth us ; because 
we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead : And that 
he died for all, &c." 

2 Cor. 5:21. "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew 
no sin." 

Gal. 3:13. "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, 
being made a curse for us." 

Col. 1:21.22. "You, that were sometime alienated * * * yet 
now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death." 

Heb. 9:26. "Now once, in the end of the world, hath he appeared 
to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." 

IV. We have thus seen (1) that the sufferings and death of Christ 
were a real atonement; (2) that in making it Christ became the substitute 
of those whom he came to save ; (3) that as such he bore the penalty 
of their transgressions. From these the fourth point follows, that in 
so doing, he made ample satisfaction to the demands of the law, and 
to the justice of God. 

1. The very fact that he was the substitute of the sinner, and that 
he bore his penalty shows that the satisfaction he made was ample ; 
Christ could have made none that was not. Anything he could do 
must be acceptable to God ; for God delighteth in him. Any act of 
his must be of infinite value to accomplish any end for which he 
designed it. Any penalty borne by him must have found a victim 
fully sufficient to fulfil every demand. The very fact that he has 
been substituted and has borne the penalty, shows that he has made 
ample satisfaction. 



Abstract of Theology. 342 

2. But this is also seen in the fact that the declaration is made 
that thus the demands of the law are fulfilled and not lowered. The 
language of Christ on this point is explicit. 

Matt. 5:17. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the 
prophets : I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." 

Rom. 7:1—6. The apostle argues that we are no longer bound to' 
the law, but bound to Christ ; that our obligations have been annulled, 
and that, henceforth, "we are delivered from the law, that being dead 
wherein we were held ; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and 
not in the oldness of the letter." This whole argument implies and is 
based upon the idea that the law has been fulfilled for us by Christ, who 
has thus-delivered us' from the bondage of obligation, that we might 
serve with the spirit of love. 

Freedom from the law on our part, accompanied by the declaration 
that Christ came not to lower it, but to fulfil it, shows that in the 
atonement for us, he has made ample satisfaction for all our sins and 
failures, as well as secured for us complete righteousness by his perfect 
obedience. 

We may here add also the prophecy of Isaiah 42:21. "The Lord 
is well pleased for his righteousness sake ; he will magnify the law 
and make it honorable," and the fact that Christ is spoken of as The 
Lord our Righteousness, in Jeremiah 23:6, and also that the Apostle Paul 
in Philippians 3:7 — 11, renounces his own righteousness of the law that 
he might have that ' -which is through the faith of Christ, the 
righteousness which is of God by faith." This fact implies a con- 
viction of the ample extent of the righteousness which is by Christ. 

3. That an ample satisfaction is made to justice is seen also in the 
fact that mercy and justice are said to be reconciled in Christ. These 
are represented as antagonistic ; mercy pleading for the sinner, and 
justice demanding his punishment ; truth requiring the fulfilment of 
the threatened penalty, which is consistent with peace, only by the 
death of Christ. 

Psalm 85:10. "Mercy and truth are met together, righteousness 
and peace have kissed each other." 

Isaiah 45:21. There is no God like me, a just God and a Saviour.'.' 

Isaiah 32:17. "And the work of righteousness shall be peace, and 
the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance." This is a wonder. 

The same fact seems to be declared in the song of the angels, on the 
plain of Bethlehem, Luke 2:14. "Glory to God in the highest, and 
on earth peace, good will to men." 



343 Abstract of Theology. 

4. This ia also seen in the approval which God gave to the work 
of Christ. Had that work not been satisfactory, we should not have 
expected the actual declarations of approval of it. That approval 
is evidenced. 

(1) By Christ's testimony to it. He tells us that he came to do 
the will of his father ; that his father sent him not to condemn the 
world ; but gave him, that whosoever believeth, might not. perish 
but have everlasting life. 

(2) In the manifested expressions of approbation by God in the 
miracles by which Christ attested his mission, as well as by the 
witness of John. 

(3) In God's own words of approval, at his Baptism, at the trans- 
figuration on the mount, and at other times. 

(4) In the angelic messengers sent to strengthen him in his work, 
and to minister to him after the temptation in the wilderness, and in 
the garden. 

(5) That most signal evidence, afforded, as is constantly declared, 
as a seal of approval, which is seen in the resurrection of Jesus from 
the dead. 

5. The ample character of this satisfaction is farther seen in the 
declarations by the sacred writers of the certainty of the salvation that 
is based upon it. Every offer of salvation made, is a passage in proof 
of this point. The words of the Commission, "He that believeth, and 
is baptized, shall be saved," and the offer of the apostle, "Believe on 
the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved," are positive 
affirmations. 

6. But it may be said that all of these points only prove God's 
approval of whatever was done by Christ, without showing that in 
that work satisfaction has been made. While this is not admitted, we 
find further proof in the sixth place in such passages, as show that so 
ample has been the work of Christ, that even a sinner is warranted 
to approach, and claim salvation in Christ's name, and that God gives 
it, as due to the merits and work of Christ. 

Heb. 4:16. "Let us therefore come boldly unto a throne of grace, 
that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." 

Heb. 10:19.22. "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into 
the holiest by the blood of Jesus, * * * Let us draw near with 
a true heart in full assurance of faith." 

Eph. 3:12. "In whom we have boldness and access, with confidence, 
by the faith of him." 



Abstract of Theology. 344 

1 John 1:9. "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to 
forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 

7. The ample satisfaction of the atonement made is also seen in 
the fact that it is declared perfect for its end in the language of the 
Apostle in Heb. 9=25 — 28, where he argues the incompleteness of the 
Mosaic sacrifices, because they had to be offered more than once, and 
the perfection of Christ's, because "now, once, in the end of the world, 
hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." 

And again in Chap. 10:10. "We are sanctified by the offering of 
the body of Christ once for all." 

1 John 1:7. "The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin." 

A question arises in view of this ample satisfaction, in what way 
may it be regarded as gratuitous when it is thus a full recompense 
for all. This is well answered in Hodge's Outlines of Theology, p. 
308, 1st Edition. The answer includes five points. 

(1.) Christ did not die to make the Father love the Elect, but was 
given to die because of that love. 

John 3:16. "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten 
Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, but have ever- 
lasting life." 

1 John 4:9. "In this was manifested the love of God towards us, 
because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world that we 
might live through him." 

(2 ) Christ made full satisfaction to divine justice in order to render 
the exercise of love consistent with justice. 

Rom. 3:26. "To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness : that 
he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." 

Psalms 85:10. "Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness 
and peace have kissed each other." The greater the obstacle and the 
more costly the price demanded of love by justice, the greater the 
love and the more free. 

On this ground God commendeth his love. 

Rom. 5:8. "But God commendeth his love to us, in that, while we 
were yet sinners, Christ died for us." 

(3) God the Father and God the Son are one God, identical in 
nature, moved by the same love, and exacting the same satisfaction. 

(4.) Penal satisfaction differs from pecuniary. If a Sovereign 
appoints, or accepts a substitute, it is all of grace. 

(5.) To Christ as Mediator, the purchased salvation of his people 
belongs of right from the terms of the eternal covenant, but to us, 



345 Abstract of Theology 

that salvation is given in all its elements, stages, and instrumentalities, 
only as a free and sovereign favour. The gift is gratuitous, if the 
beneficiary has no shadow of claim to it, and if no conditions are 
exacted of him. The less worthy the beneficiary is, and the more 
difficult the conditions which justice exacts of the giver, the more 
eminently gratuitous the gift is. 

V. The fifth point to be shown, is that by this work an actual 
reconciliation has been effected. 

1. The points already proved show this. If an atonement has 
been made by one who was actually substituted in the place of the 
guilty ; who, as so substituted, paid the penalty and rendered full 
satisfaction to the law, so that the law has no longer any claims; then 
there has been undoubtedly an actual reconciliation. Peace has been 
made by the cross between God and man. 

2. The plain declarations of Scripture are, that God has been 
reconciled to us by Christ. 

Rom. 5 - -10. "If, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God 
by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be 
saved by his life." Similar declarations are found in 2 Cor. 5:19; 
Eph. 2:13.16.17; Col. 1:20.21.22. They are not given at length, 
because they will have to be presented immediately for another 
purpose. It may be said tha.t reconciliation is admitted, but that this 
means only a method of reconciliation. 

3. Therefore it must be shown that actual reconciliation has been 
made from what the Scriptures say of the purpose had in view in 
reconciliation, which was actually to save, not to make salvation 
possible. 

Matt. 18:20. "For the Son of man is come to save that which is 
lost, 1 ' Also Luke 19:10. 

2 Cor. 5:21. "'He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no 
sin ; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." 

Gal. 1=4. ."Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us 
from this present evil world, according to the will of our Father." 

Gal. 4=4.5. "God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under 
the law, to redeem them that were under the law; that we might 
receive the adoption of sons." 

1 Tim. 115. "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all accepta- 
tion, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom 
I am chief." 



Abstract of Theology. 346 

The purpose of God is thus seen, not to make salvation possible, 
but actually to save, to redeem, to make righteous, &c. Still it may 
be said, that this purpose might be effected by a method of recon- 
ciliation. 

4. But the Scriptures, in speaking of what is actually effected by 
Christ's work for those who are reconciled by it, show that the recon- 
ciliation was actually made in that work itself. The time at which it 
was done, and what was done at that time show this. 

Rom. 5=10, "If, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God 
by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be 
saved by his life." The time was, "when we were enemies," at the 
time of Christ's death. The application of salvation follows this 
reconciliation. 

Gal. 3:13. ' -Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, 
being made a curse for us." 

Eph. 1:7. 'Tn whom we have redemption through his blood, the 
forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace." 

Eph. 2>"14 — 16. "For he is our peace, who hath made both one, 
and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us ; 
having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of command- 
ments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one 
new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto 
God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby." 

Col. 1:20. "And having made peace, through the blood of his cross, 
by him, to reconcile all things unto himself." 

1 Thess. 1:10. "Even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath 
to come." 

1 Peter 1:18.19. "Ye were not redeemed, * * * but with the 
precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish, and without 
spot." 

All these passages speak of these effects, as actually accomplished 
by Christ, in his death upon the cross. [See Hodge's Outlines, p. 
314, 1st Edition.] 

5. The connection between the gift of the spirit, and the work of 
Christ shows, that there has been actual reconciliation. The promise 
of the Spirit to us is made and that Spirit is given as a reward of 
Christ's death. That death is declared to have this gift as one of 
the purposes to be effected by it. 

Acts 233. "Therefore, being by the right hand of God exalted, 
and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he 



347 Abstract of Theology 

hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear." This shows that 
the gift of the Spirit is the result of Christ's exaltation, which was 
also taught by Christ, when he said that, unless he went away, the 
Spirit could not come. 

Gal. 313. 14. "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, 
* * * that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through 
faith." 

Titus 3:5.6. "He saved us, * * * by the renewing of the 
Holy Ghost, * * * which he shed on us abundantly through 
Jesus Christ our Saviour." 

These passages show that, 

(.1) The gift of the Spirit was purchased by Christ's death. 

(2) That that gift secures actual salvation. 

(3) That it must be given to all for whom he has died. 

(4) That in that death actual reconciliation is consequently secured. 



The discussion of the nature of the sacrificial work of Christ has in 
great part prepared the way for that of the Extent of the Atone- 
ment. But while the previous inquiry has necessarily included some 
statements as to the limitation which the Scriptures put upon this 
work, and presented some facts which establish such limitation, a 
special treatment of this branch of the subject is nevertheless necessary. 

Here also we have several theories. 

I. The first is that of the Universalists, w^ho connecting the nature 
which the Scriptures assign to the atonement with some expressions, 
which seem to assert its universal extent, hold the notion of such a 
universal atonement, as actually secures the salvation of all men. 

The objections to this view are : 

1. That salvation is confined in the Scriptures to those that believe, 
and all men are not believers. 

2. That the gospel is spoken of as the only means of salvation, and 
the gospel is not even preached to all. 

3. That express threats are uttered in the word of God against 
those who die in their sins. 

4. That at least one sin is expressly mentioned, that shall not be 
pardoned. 

5. That the arrangement of God's plan of salvation is such as shows 
that the people of God are saved from their sins, not in them ; con- 
sequently the unholy are not saved. 



Abstract of Theology. 348 

6. The descriptions of the judgment day deny universal salvation. 

7. The Scripture doctrine of the Hell prepared for the punishment 
of the wicked shows it to be untrue. 

These and many other facts show that the atonement is limited in 
some way. The question arises in what way. 

II. A second theory makes the atonement itself general, but limits 
its benefits to those who exercise faith. 

It is claimed that thus only can be interpreted the passages w r hich 
speak of a work for the world, consistently with any limitation ; that 
thus only can God justly offer salvation to all; and that this theory 
fully meets all the conditions on which salvation is offered. 

It cannot be denied that salvation is offered and will be given on 
the condition of faith and repentance ; nor that there are general 
expressions which assert that Christ's work of atonement has efficacy 
beyond the limits of the Elect; but these facts must be so explained 
as to harmonize with the nature of the atonement and its relation to 
those for whom it was specially made. The following objections, 
therefore, may be made to this theory. 

1. Any atonement, general in any such sense as not to be limited 
in God's purpose, is inconsistent with what we have seen to be the 
nature of the atonement. 

2. It does not accord with justice that any should suffer for 
whom a substitute has actually borne the penalty, and made full 
satisfaction. 

3. It makes salvation the result in part of faith ; but faith is the 
result of reconciliation, not its cause ; it is the gift of God. 

4. It is inconsistent with the many passages which teach the 
doctrine of an Election of man to salvation not because of foreseen 
faith. 

5. It is inconsistent with tho.^e passages which point out the con' 
nection of the purpose of God with the salvation of those who are 
saved. 

III. A third theory is that this limitation is one of purpose ; that 
God designed only the actual salvation of some ; and that, whatever 
provision has been made for others, he made this positive arrangement 
by which the salvation of certain ones is secured. In favour of this 
theory it may be said : 

1. That this is in accordance with the doctrine of Election. 

2. That it explains how it is that such a salvation as the Scriptures 



349 Abstract of Theology. 

represent to have been wrought out by Christ is attained by some, and 
by some only. 

3. It alone agrees with the language of limitation used in some 
Scriptures as to Christ's death ; either in those passages in which it 
is specially appropriated to Christians ; or those in which he is spoken 
of as a ransom "for many." This class of passages is numerous. 

The difficulties against this theory are : 

1. That the offer of salvation is made to all men. 

2. That the Scriptures speak of Christ's death as for the world, 
and in such a way as to contrast the world at large with those who 
believe. 

An explanation of these passages must therefore be given, which, 
while it retains the full force intended in Scripture of these general 
expressions, and maintains the sincerity of God's offer of the gospel to 
all, shows at the same time its harmony with the doctrine of a 
definite purpose of God. 

1. It was with the intention of doing this that Andrew Fuller 
suggested his theory of the atonement. But, as has been shown, that 
theory accomplishes the desired end only by ascribing such a nature to 
the atonement, as makes it only a method of reconciliation for the 
people of God, and not actual reconciliation. 

2. A far better explanation is given by Dr. A. A. Hodge in the 
following question and answer : 

"Ques. 17. State first negatively, and then positively, the true 
doctrine as to the design of the Father and the Son in providing 
satisfaction." 

"I. Negatively— 1st. There is no debate among Christians as to 
the sufficiency of that satisfaction to accomplish the salvation of all 
men, however vast the number. This is absolutely limitless. 2nd. 
Nor as to its applicability to the case of any and every possible human 
sinner who will ever exist. The relations of all to the demands of 
the law are identical. What would save one would save another. 3rd. 
Nor to the bona fide character of the offer which God has made to 
"whomsoever wills" in the gospel. It is applicable to every one, it 
will infallibly be applied to every believer. 4th. Nor as to its actual 
application. Arminians agree with Calvinists that of adults only 
those who believe are saved, while Calvinists agree with Arminians 
that all dying in infancy are redeemed and saved. 5th. Nor is there 
any debate as to the universal reference of some of the benefits 
purchased by Christ. Calvinists believe that the entire dispensation 



Abstract of Theology. 350 

of: forbearance under which the human family rests since the fall, 
including for the unjust as well as the just temporal mercies and 
means of grace, is part of the purchase of Christ's blood. They admit, 
also that Christ did in such a sense die for all men, that he thereby 
removed all legal obstacles from the salvation of any and every man, 
and that his satisfaction may be applied to one man as well as to 
another "if God so wills it." 

"II. But positively the question is what was the design of the 
Father and Son in the vicarious death of Christ. Did they purpose 
to make the salvation of the elect certain, or merely to make the 
salvation of all men possible? Did his satisfaction have reference 
indifferently as much to one man as to another ? Did the satisfaction 
purchase and secure its own application, and all the means thereof, to 
all for whom it was specifically rendered ? Has the impetration and 
the application of this atonement the same range of objects ? Was it, 
in the order of the divine purpose, a means to accomplish the purpose 
of election, or is the election of individuals a means to carry into effect 
the satisfaction of Christ otherwise inoperative?" 

Our Confession answers : 

Ch. viii, § 5. "The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of him- 
self, * * * purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting in- 
heritance in the kingdom of heaven for all those whom the Father hath given 
unto him." — Ch. iii, \ 6. "As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so 
hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all 
the means thereunto. Wherefore they that are elected, being fallen in Adam, 
are redeemed in Christ. * * * Neither are any other redeemed by 
Christ * * * but the elect only." 

Ch. viii, \ 8. "To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemp- 
tion, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same." — - 
"Articles of Synod of Dort," Ch. II, \ 1.2.8. 

"The design of Christ in dying was to effect what he actually does 
effect in the result. 1st. Incidentally to remove the legal impedi- 
ments out of the way of all men, and render the salvation of every 
hearer of the gospel objectively possible, so that each one has a right 
to appropriate it at will, to impetrate temporal blessings for all, and 
the means of grace for all to whom they are providentially supplied. 
But, 2nd, Specifically his design was to impetrate the actual salvation 
of his own people, in all the means, conditions, and stages of it, and 
render it infallibly certain. This last, from the nature of the case, 
must have been his real motive. After the manner of the Augustinian 
Schoolmen Calvin, on 1 John 2:2, says, "Christ died sufficiently for 
all, but efficiently only for the elect." [Outlines of Theology, pp. 
416 and 417 of the second edition.] 



351 Abstract of Theology. 

3. Another statement upon this subject may prove more satis- 
factory, although it embraces no more than is actually implied in the 
above extract from Dr. Hodge. It has only the advantage of recog- 
nizing more explicitly the relation of the atoning work of Christ both 
to the world and to the elect; a relation clearly indicated to be such 
that he can be called, in some general sense, the Saviour of all men, 
though he bears this relation more especially to those who believe. 
1 Tim. 4:10. The statement suggested is, that while, for the Elect, 
he made an actual atonement, by which they were actually reconciled 
to God, and, because of which, are made the subjects of the special 
divine grace by which they become believers in Christ and are justified 
through him, Christ, at the same time, and in the same work, 
wrought out a means of reconciliation for all men ; which removed 
every legal obstacle to their salvation, upon their acceptance of the 
same conditions upon which the salvation is given to the Elect. 
According to this statement: 

1. Christ did actually die for the salvation of all, so that he might 
be called the Saviour of all ; because his work is abundantly sufficient 
to secure the salvation of all who will put their faith in him. 

2. Christ died, however, in an especial sense for the Elect ; because 
he procured for them not a possible, but an actual salvation. 

3. The death of Christ opens the way for a sincere offer of sal- 
vation by God to all who will accept the conditions he has laid down. 

4. That same death, however, secures salvation to the Elect, 
because by it Christ also obtained for them those gracious influences, 
by which they will be led to comply with those conditions. 

5. The work of Christ, contemplated as securing the means of 
reconciliation, is a full equivalent to all that the advocates of a general 
atonement claim: for they do not suppose that more than this was 
done for mankind in general ; while Calvinists readily recognize that 
this much has been done for all. 

6. But, while the making of an actual atonement for the Elect is not 
inconsistent with the securing of a method of atonement for all, the 
assertion that such was the special work done for them complies 
with the nature of the atonement as heretofore seen, and shows* how 
Christ could be especially their Saviour, and also the Saviour of all. 




Abstract of Theology. 352 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE XXIX. 



ELECTION. 

The words Elect, Election, Predestination, Chosen, Foreknow, and 
Foreknowledge occur so frequently in Scripture, that it is allowed by 
all that the Scriptures teach a doctrine of Election of some kind. 
The chief controversy is as to what that doctrine is. 

Several theories have been presented as descriptive of the instruc- 
tions of the Scriptures. 

I. First there is the theory set forth by the celebrated John Locke 
in his commentary and paraphrase of the epistles of Paul. It has 
been called the theory of Nationalism. According to this, Election 
consists "in the choice of certain whole nations into the pale of the 
visible Church Catholic, which choice, however, relates purely to their 
privileged condition in this world, extending not to their collective 
eternal state in another world." The cause of this election is : "That 
same absolute good pleasure of God, which, through the exercise of His 
sovereign power, led Him to choose the posterity of Jacob, rather than 
that of Esau, that, upon earth, they should become his peculiar people 
and be made the depositaries and preservers of the true religion." 
("Faber's Primitive Election," p. 22.] 

The objections to this theory are evident, and may be briefly stated, 
1. That the election spoken of in the New Testament is an election 
of persons within a nation, and not of the nation itself. A distinction 
is made between the Jewish nation, and the remnant of them accor- 
ding to the election of grace. Rom. 11:5. It is also said in verse 7: 
''Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for, but the election 
hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded." 



353 Abstract of Theology 

Mr. Locke attempts to remove this difficulty by supposing that the 
Israel here spoken of is the whole nation before the loss of the ten 
tribes, and that the remnant, is all of the rest that remained Jews at 
the time Paul wrote. But, that the present nation was the Israel 
referred to Paul himself shows by applying to it, in Rom. 10:21, the 
title of Israel. "But to Israel," he saith, "all day long I have 
stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people." 
The Israel to whom Isaiah, who is here referred to, went, was Judah; 
his prophecies were but seldom made to the Ten Tribes. 

2. A distinction is also made between persons in the same nation ; 
the elect being separated from others, as in Matt. 24:22 — 24, where 
fearful calamities are foretold, and it is said, that prophets shall arise, 
&c, and that if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 

The parallel passage is in Mark 13:20 — 22. 

3. Against this theory may also be quoted such passages as show 
that the called, and the elect are not identical, as : 

Matt. 22-14. "Many are called, but few chosen." 

II. A modification of this theory has been made or the rather 
another one has been suggested so similar that the idea has evidently 
been caught from that of Locke. It is given by George Stanly Faber 
in his work on "The Primitive Doctrine of Election." It may be 
called the theory of Church Election, or of External Church privileges. 
Mr. Faber states it as follows : "The idea is that of an Election of 
individuals into the pale of the visible church, with God's moral 
purpose that through faith and holiness they should attain everlast- 
ing life; but yet with a moral possibility of their abusing their 
privileges even to their own final destruction. 

1. It is argued in favour of this, that "we never find one particu- 
lar set of Christians addressed as being especially elect to the ex- 
clusion of all other Christians, who, together with the unconverted 
world at large, are thence exhibited as reprobates. But we constantly 
find that all the members of th e local church addressed are collectively 
saluted as being in God's purpose and design elected through holiness 
to glory." 

In reply it may be remarked : 

(1.) That this argument proceeds upon the erroneous supposition 
that there were persons called Christians in Apostolic times who did 
not actually profess to be converted persons, and therefore were not 
properly to be regarded as such. 



Abstkact of Theology. 354 

Every argument in favour of a converted church membership is an 
argument against this supposition, and, therefore, against this theory. 

(2 ) Or it proceeds upon a second erroneous supposition, namely, 
that the Apostles undertook to pronounce infallibly upon the spiritual 
condition of those to whom they wrote. On the contrary, proceeding 
upon the rule, "By their fruits ye shall know them," they, in the 
judgment of charity, spoke of those to whom they wrote as though 
they were actually Christians, because professedly such, and main- 
taining outwardly the life of such. Thus they are called "holy," in 
like manner as they are called "elect," and are said "to be without blame 
before God in love,'' Eph. 1:4 ; and to have redemption, and the for- 
giveness of sins, v. 7 ; and to have obtained an inheritance, of which 
the sealing of the Spirit was an earnest. 

2. In favour of this view, it is asserted that the Apostle teaches 
us in Rom. 9:6 — 26, that the terms election and elect are used in the 
same sense in which they are used in the Old Testament. 

To this it may be replied : 

(1.) That if true it favours the theory of Nationalism rather than 
this. 

(2 ) That the Apostle himself distinguishes between the extent of 
the election, which had before existed, and that which was now mani- 
fested. "They are not all Israel who are of Israel." "Neither because 
they are the seed of Abraham are they all children ;" thus indicating 
that the limitation had been formerly made according to the national 
extent, but that now a segregation is made from this. The two 
elections, therefore, differ in extent. 

(3.) But the difference is also in kind. This is what affects this 
theory most closely. Even under the old election, not all the 
children, but simply the one of the promise is the one in whom the 
election exists. Under the new, the same thing is true, the election is 
not of all to whom the external privileges connected with it belong, 
but of those only who are partakers of the promise. In this respect 
they are similar, and so Paul indicates: "The children of the promise 
are counted for the seed." But formerly the promise was of Isaac, 
wherefore it was said, "In Isaac shall thy seed be called." And that 
promise was of the land of Canaan, which w T as granted actually to all 
of his descendants as a class. So also now, the children of the promise 
are the elect ; but they are not all to whom the external privileges 
of hearing the gospel, or even of entering the church of Christ, are 
given, for unto these as a class this promise is not fulfilled ; but, simply, 



355 Abstract of Theology 

to those who truly embrace the gospel, and by faith in Jesus are 
vitally united to him. It is to this class only that the election refers. 
There is, therefore, a difference in kind indicated by the Apostle. 

3. It is said that the language of address to the churches, con- 
tained in the letters of the Apostles, indicate the election of whole 
churches, and that, consequently, election must be merely to external 
church privileges. Dr. Faber does not cite the passages at length, 
because he thinks that any attentive reader, by attending to them, 
will readily perceive their palpably universalizing tendency. But he 
adduces as proof the beginnings of Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, 
Colossians, 1st and 2nd Thessalonians and 1 Peter. 

(1.) Of these, singular to say, none speak of election in the ad- 
dresses to the churches, except Ephesians, the two Thessalonians and 
1st Peter. But the others all speak of the saints, and of a calling to 
sanctification. The truth is, that, as they professed to be God's child- 
ren, the Apostle, in the judgment of charity, speaks of them as such,, 
and this is shown by the language of all the salutations as well as of 
the epistles at large. 

(2.) The language in Ephesians is used as inclusive, not only of 
those to whom he wrote, but of himself also. It evidently is intended 
to refer to him and them, as having like hopes, and being partakers 
of like promises. That, at least, it is not intended to refer to the mere 
privilege of church membership, is evident from the fact that the 
apostle speaks of these persons as "sealed with that Holy Spirit of 
promise," Ch. 1:13. They are spoken of as "having been quickened," 
Ch. 2:1, as having been "dead in trespasses and sins," Gh. 2:1, and 
as having been the "children of wrath even as others," Ch. 2:2. Such 
language scarcely comports with an address to those whom the Apostle 
had not reason to believe converted persons. 

The epistles to the Thessalonians, to which Faber also refers, are 
even more distinctly against him. For, here, we have not simply to 
infer what were the feelings which led to the expressions used by the 
Apostle ; but he himself tells us of the fact that he knew their election, 
and assigns the reasons of his belief. These are not because they 
enjoyed the outward privileges of the church ; but because of their 
work of faith and labours of love, and. patience of hope, and because 
the gospel came not to them in word only, bnt also in power, and in 
the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance. 

As to the Epistle of Peter it may be said, 

(a) That the elect spoken of are "strangers scattered throughout 



Abstract of Theology. 356 

Pontus, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia." This at least creates the 
presumption that they had no especial opportunities of church privi- 
leges. This, however, is doubtful. 

(b) They are, however, spoken of, verses 3 and 4, as "begotten" 
* . * * "unto a lively hope, * * * to an inheritance * * * 
reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through 
faith unto salvation." Again, they are spoken of, verse 8, as "loving 
Christ," as "believing in him and rejoicing with joy unspeakable." 

4. Yet, again, three passages are adduced in which a whole church 
as such is styled elect, and it is argued thence that this is the Scrip- 
tural meaning of election. These passages are, 1 Pet. 5:13, "The co-elect 
church, which is in Babylon, saluteth you." 2 John, 1st verse, "The 
elder to the elect lady and her children,'' and verse 3rd, "The children 
of thine elect sister salute thee." 

(1.) Of these passages it may be said that the application of any 
of them to a church is doubtful. This is evident from the English 
version of all but the first, and the literal rendering of that is, "The, 
from or in Babylon, that is elected with you, saluteth you. " It would 
be bad to form a theory upon such doubtful passages. 

(2.) Admitting these, however, to have the meaning asserted and 
that an elect church would be spoken of as such only with reference 
to the privileges thus conferred upon its members ; it does not follow 
that this is the only sense which election can have. It must be shown 
not only that there is such an election, but that nothing else is spoken 
of under that name before this theory can be established as the only 
election taught. The truth is. that the general nature of the term, 
elec^ choose, &c, makes it practicable to have several kinds of 
election, and the nature of the election has to be decided by those 
declarations of its character and purpose which accompany it. 

(3.) Under any view of Election, save that of Nationalism, it would 
be perfectly appropriate to apply the word elect to the body as such 
which is supposed to be composed only of elect members. Thus we 
often speak of Congress or of a State Legislature as the assembled wis- 
dom of the State or Country, because such is hypothetically its 
character ; it being supposed to be composed of men who represent by 
their wisdom that of their constituents. So the church may be spoken 
of as elect, because composed of those supposed from the best sources 
of knowledge to be the elect of God. 

5. The fifth argument is from the parables of the labourers in 
the vine yard, Matt. 20;1 — 16, and the marriage of the King's son, 
Matt. 22:2—14. 



357 Abstract of Theology. 

"These/' says Faber, "contain the passages where the term Elect or 
Chosen first occurs and in these parables the Chosen or the Elect are 
all those who so far obey the call of the gospel as to enter the' pale of 
. the visible Christian Church." And in order to show that they are 
not secure there from destruction, the case of the man without the 
wedding garment is mentioned. 

It may be replied, as to the first of these parables, that Faber does not 
point out any indication of such loss of any persons in the churches, as 
is implied in this parable. The parable is merely instructive as to 
the fact of God's sovereignty, and as to his bestowment of blessings 
on whom He will. The phrase is added, "many be called but few 
chosen ;" which is the key to the parable and yet, in no wise bears 
upon the subject under discussion, save to show that there are two 
classes, the called, and the elect, and that the first comprises many, the 
latter few ; facts which oppose the theory of the author, who claims 
that the elect are not the few that are saved, but are the same as the 
many who are called to the external privileges of God's trufh. 

The second parable is even more distinctly against him. In it there 
are three classes : the first, those who are called, and pay no attention 
to the invitation to the feast ; the second, those who enter to partake 
of it, who may be regarded as the ones gathered here on earth into 
the earthly church ; the third, the class marked by the separation 
from among them of the one who had not on a wedding garment, 
which represents the self deceived in Christ's earthly churches. 
Immediately after the order for his destruction is given by the king, 
it is added, "For many are called, but few are chosen." Does not the 
word chosen here evidently point out those who are the saved, as 
distinguished from those who are the outwardly privileged ; either as 
the outwardly called who refuse, or the called who enter the church 
and enjoy its privileges. If so, the author's view of Election is false. 

These are the only arguments, that can properly be so called, that 
are advanced in favour of this theory, and the above statements fully 
show that the Scriptures nowhere teach the doctrine of Election as 
thus set forth. The theory has been examined more at length 
than its own merits deserve, partly, because it is not so generally 
known, but more especially, because it has the sanction of a man of 
known ability and scholarship though of admitted fanciful and 
unsound judgment. 

III. Finding now that election is in no respect one to external 
privileges, we pass to the third theory which has been suggested r. 



Abstract of Theology. 358 

that of foreseen faith, set forth by Arminians of all classes. It is thus 
expressed in one of the five articles on Predestination and Grace set 
forth by the Synod of Dort. 

"God, from all eternity, determined to bestow salvation on those 
whom he foresaw to be about to persevere unto the end in their faith 
in Christ Jesus, and to inflict everlasting punishment on those who 
should continue in their unbelief and should resist unto the end his 
divine succors." 

The other articles, which accompany this, teach a universal atone- 
ment, offered upon condition of faith to all persons, to each of whom 
is given sufficient grace to accept or reject it. Upon this acceptance 
or rejection, salvation depends. 

This theory of election, therefore, asserts that : 

(1.) The Election of individuals is the result of their own choice. 

(2.) That that made by God is simply an election of a class. 

(3.) That so far as the election of individuals took place in eternity 
it was only as God foresaw what would be the result of the election 
of a class. 

(4.) That it is an election made upon condition that they would 
accept the offer of the gospel. 

TV". As this theory is just the opposite in every respect of the 
Galvinistic theory of personal, unconditional, and eternal Election, it 
is better to put the two in direct contrast, and to proceed to the proof 
that the Scriptures teach the latter, and not che former. 
- The latter theory is that God, (Who and not man is the one who 
chooses or elects,) of His own purpose, (in accordance with His will, 
and not from any obligation to man, nor because of any will of man,) 
has from Eternity, (the period of God's action, not in time in which 
man acts,) determined to save (not has actually, saved, but simply 
determined so to do ; and to save, not to confer gospel or church 
privileges,) a definite number of mankind, (not the whole race, nor 
indefinitely merely some of them, nor indefinitely a certain propor- 
tionate part ; but a definite number,) as individuals, (not the whole 
or a part of the race, nor of a nation, nor of a church, nor of a class, 
as of believers or the pious ; but individuals,) not for or because of 
any merit or work of theirs, nor of any value to Him of them, (not 
for their good works, nor their holiness, nor excellence, nor their 
faith, nor their spiritual sanctification, although the choice is to a 
salvation attained through faith and sanctification ; nor their value to 



359 Abstract of Theology. 

Him, though, their salvation tends greatly to the manifested glory of 
His grace ;) but of His own good pleasure, (simply because He was 
pleased so to choose.) 

This theory, therefore, teaches that election is : 

(1.) An act of God, and not the result of the choice of the elect. 

(2.) That this choice is one of individuals, and not of classes. 

(3.) That it w T as made without respect to the action of the persons 
elected. 

(4.) By the good pleasure of God. 

(5 ) According to an eternal purpose. 

(6.) That it is an election to salvation and not to outward privileges. 

To the Scriptures alone must we look for the truth upon this subject. 
Upon opening them we find that the words Election and Elect are 
used in various senses. 

1. They signify a choice to office whether by man or God. 
Luke 6:13. Christ's choice of the twelve Apostles. 

Acts 1:21. The selection of an Apostle in the place of Judas. 
Acts 9:15. Saul is called a chosen vessel. 

1 Pet. 2:6 — 10. Christ is spoken of as the corner stone, elect, 
precious that is laid in Zion. 

2. The choice of Israel to their peculiar national privilege of being 
the chosen or separated people of God ; as in Acts 13:17. "The God 
of this people Israel chose our fathers." 

3. It is once used for a choice made of salvation by an individual. 
Luke 10:42. "Mary hath chosen that better part which shall not 

be taken from her." 

4. In a large majority of cases it has reference to the choice to 
salvation, either in the purpose or act of choice by God. 

It is to the doctrine taught in this last class of passages that our 
inquiries are to be turned. 

1. Election is an act of God, and not the result of the choice of the 
Elect. 

This is not now an inquiry into the reason of Election ; but simply 
into the agent. Does God choose the elect, whether by his own purpose, 
or because he foresees that they will believe, or for any other reason ? 
Is election an act of God? 

The fact on this point would appear more clearly if we were to 
exchange the common word choice or chosen with the equivalent 
word elect. 






Abstract of Theology. 360 

The following passages are sufficient, though the examples are far 

more numerous. 

John 13:18. "I know whom I have chosen." 

John 15:16. "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you," 

(not to their offices as apostle, but) "that ye should bring forth fruit." 
Rom. 8:33. "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect ?' 5 
Rom. 9:15. "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy." 
Eph. 1:4. "According as he hath chosen us in him." 
Eph. 1.11. "Being predestinated according to the purpose of him 

who worketh all things according to the counsel of his own will." 
2 Thess. 2:13. "God hath from the beginning chosen you to 

salvation." 

2. This choice is one of individuals and not of classes. 

This position needs to be explained. It is not denied that the Elect 
are to be true believers, and that true believers are the Elect. The 
character of the Elect does not, therefore, enter into this question. 
The issue is simply, does God choose all who shall believe and are 
they, as such, His elect ? or, does he choose his elect and will they, as 
such believe ? Is belief the result of God's election, or is God's election 
the result of man's faith ? 

Acts 13:48. "As many as were ordained to eternal life believed." 
This is a historical statement made subsequent to the event, not by 
man's knowledge but by inspiration. 

Eph. 1:4.5. "According as he hath chosen us in him, * * * 
having predestinated us unto the adoption of children." 

2 Thess. 2:13. "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God 
for you, brethren, beloved of the Lord, because God hath from 
the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the 
spirit and belief of the truth." Here the choice is made to salvation, 
and the means to salvation, sanctification and faith are indicated ; no 
prerequisite or means being stated as to Election. It is not as 
believers that they are elected ; but as elected, that they are saved. 

Rom. 8:29. "Whom he did foreknow he also did predestinate to 
be conformed to the image of his Son." The foreknowledge here is 
of persons, not of personal acts, not of those whose faith He foreknew, 
nor, as would be essential to their theory, is it of the class of believers 
as such. The Arminian theory would require the substitution of the 
words "as believers" or "you as believers" instead of those which are 
used. 



361 Abstract of Theology 

It is not, therefore, to the class of believers, but to individuals that 
election refers. But, it may be asked, does it not refer to them in that 
character ? Did not God choose those whose faith He foresaw ? 

3. The third point then to be proved is, that it was not because 
of any act or merit of theirs, but irrespective of anything but His own 
good pleasure, that this Election was made. 

This is merely a negative form of the same fact stated by the next 
point affirmatively. It is better, therefore, to unite this with the 
succeeding one which is, 

4. That the election is made through the mere good pleasure of 
God. 

Some of the passages simply affirm a choice by God's Sovereign 
will; others, while asserting this, also deny merit in those elected ; and 
still others represent the fact of sovereignty by asserting a choice of 
such persons as would not ordinarily be chosen. The following are 
some of the passages which prove these points 

(i.) Such as simply assert sovereign will. Such are Matt. 24:40.41 
and Luke 17:33 — 36. These declare the sovereign choice of God by 
showing such choice exercised as to persons in the same situation, so 
that the one shall be taken and the other left; "two men in one bed;" 
"two women grinding at the mill;" "two men shall be in the field;" 
one of each shall be taken and the other left. 

John 3:3 — 8. Regeneration is here spoken of as essential to en- 
trance into the kingdom of God. This precedes any act on which 
election is said by any to depend. Yet the sovereignty of God in 
this is declared in verse 8. "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and 
thou nearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, 
and whither it goeth ; so is every one that is born of the Spirit." 

John 6:37.39.44.64.65. "All that the Father giveth me shall come 
to me. * * * This is the Father's will which hath sent me, that 
of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing. * * * No 
man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw 
him. * * * Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that 
believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore 
said I unto you, that no man can come to me, except it were given 
unto him of my Father." 

John 15:16. "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and 
ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit." The object 
to be attained cannot be the cause. 



Abstract of Theology. 362 

John 17:2. "As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he 
should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him." See 
alsj verse 6 — 12. 

Acts 22:14 Ananias says to Paul, "The God of our fathers hath 
chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will." 

Eph. 1:4. In the third verse having referred to God's choice of us 
eternally, he says, ''having predestinated us unto the adoption of 
children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of 
his own will, to the praise of the glory of his grace." In verse 11 we 
are said to be predestinated to our inheritance "according to the pur- 
pose of him who worketh all things after the council of his own will." 

James 1:18. "Of hi^ own will begat he us with the word of truth." 

(2.) Such as deny merit in the persons elected as well as assert 
the sovereign choice of God. 

Ezek. 36;32. In this passage, after describing the blessings con- 
nected with the new dispensation, and the gift of the Spirit and the 
new heart which He would give them, — gifts which the Calvinistic 
theory regards as the result of election ; but which the Arminian 
maintains to be its cause, — God adds, "Not for your sakes do I this, 
saith the Lord God, be it known unto you ; be ashamed and con- 
founded for your own ways, house of Israel." 

John 1:13. 16. "He came unto his own, and his own received him 
not. But, as many as received him, to them gave he power to become 
the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name ; which were 
born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of 
man, but of God." 

In Rom. 9:11 Election is illustrated by the case of the twins; "the 
children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, 
that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of 
works, but of him that calleth. * * * So then it is not of him 
that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy." 

Rom. 11=5.6 "Even so then at this present time also there is a 
remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it 
is no more of works ; otherwise grace is no more grace." 

(3.) Such as so describe the persons chosen as to imply this. 

Matt. 11:25. "At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, 
Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these 
things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. 
Even so, Father : for so it seemed good in thy sight." 



363 Abstract of Theology 

Luke 4:25 — 27. Christ illustrates this sovereignty of God by 
mentioning that many widows had been in Israel, yet had only a 
heathen widow been blessed ; and again many lepers, and yet only 
a heathen leppr cured. "I tell you a truth, many widows were in 
Israel in the days of Elia^, * * * but unto none of them was 
Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman thaUwas 
a widow. And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the 
prophet ; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naam-in the Syrian." 

Acts 26:12 — 23. Paul's description of his personal condition at his 
conversion shows that God chose him not for his merits but for his 
own good pleasure. 

1 Cor. 1:26 — 30. "For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not 
many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are 
called. But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to con- 
found the wise ; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to 
confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, 
and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things 
which are not, to bring to nought things that are, that no flesh should 
glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, &e." 

Gal. 1:15.16. Paul says, "when it pleased God, who separated me 
from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal His 
Son in me that I might preach, &c." 

Ephesians 2=1 — 13. The description of the condition of those who 
were dead in trespasses and sins, and in that state were quickened, 
proves that the quickening and salvation was due to no merit of 
their own. 



The texts thus exhibited under these three classes prove conclusively 
that not on account of their own merits, but because of the good 
pleasure of God, does He choose men. They have been presented at 
some length, because this is after all the point upon which all that is 
important in this controversy turns. For, although the other points 
are equally essential to the doctrine, the whole opposition arises from 
an unwillingness on the part of man to recognize the sovereignty of 
God, and to ascribe salvation entirely to grace. This proof, however, 
has been by no means exhausted, the attempt having been to 
select some only of the numerous passages, and mainly such as from 
their conciseness allowed of presentation in full. Let the Scriptures 
be read with reference to this doctrine and every passage marked 
which indicates God's dealing with men as an absolute sovereign, and 




Abstract of Theology. 364 

also every declaration which ascribes Election or the fruits of it to His 
choice and not to the will or acts of men, and every illustration 
afforded that this is God's usual method, and it will appear that 
scarcely any book of Scripture will fail to furnish testimony to the 
fact that in the acts of grace, no less than those of providence, God 
"doe th according to His will in the army of Heaven and among the 
inhabitants of the Earth." 



5. Another important fact to be shown is the eternity of Election 
in opposition to the idea that it was in time. The proof on this point 
is two-fold. There are (1) those passages which show that the 
Election took place before existence in this world or before the world 
began, and (2) those which actually declare that it was eternal. 
Between the two classes of passages there is really, however, very 
little difference, as, from the nature of the case, what took place before 
time must have been in Eternity, and besides the object of proof of 
an eternal Election is simply to show that it was not dependent on 
human action, but simply on the will of God. 

(1.) Those which show that the Election took place before man's 
existence, or before the world began. 

Jer. 1:5. "Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee, and 
before thou earnest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee." 

Matt. 25:34. "Then shall the King say unto them on his right 
hand, Come, ye blessed of my father, inherit the kingdom prepared 
for you from the foundation of the world." 

Eph. 1:4. "According as he hath chosen us in him before the 
foundation of the world.'' 

2 Thess. 2:13. "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God, 
brethren, beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning 
chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief 
of the truth." 

2 Tim. 1:9. "Who hath saved us and called us with an holy call- 
ing, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose 
and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began." 

Compare also the language used as to the names written in the 
Lamb's book of life. 

Rev. 13:8. "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, 
(that is the beast) whose names are not written in the book of life of 
the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." 

Kev. 17:8. "And they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, (whose 



365 • Abstract of Theology. 

names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the 
world,) when they behold the beast that was. and is not, and yet is." 

Referring to the adherents of the Lamb as persons '-with him,'" it 
had been previously said in verse 14, "They that are with him are 
called, and chosen, and faithful." 

Rev. 21:27. "And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing 
that derilelh, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a 
lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life." 

(2 ) The passages which distinctly declare that this, which may 
be thus inferred to have been an eternal Election, is really such. 

Acts 15:18. The Apostle is referring to the change made in the 
calling of the Gentiles, and, after showing its accordance with the 
ancient Scriptures, he adds in this ; ''Known unto God are all his 
works from the beginning of the world," literally from Eternity. 

1 Cor. 2:7. "Even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before 
the world unto our glory." 

Eph. 3:11. "According to the eternal purpose which He prepared 
in Christ Jesus our Lord." 

6. It remains to be proved that this Election is one to salvation, 
and not to mere external privileges. 

Jeremiah 31:31 — 34 : 

verse 31. Tells of a day when a new covenant shall be made. 

verse 32. Says that this shall not be like that made with their 
fathers, (not one of external privileges.) 

verse 33. But of this sort, "I will put my law in their inward 
parts, and write it in their hearts ; and will be their God, and they 
shall be my people." 

verse 34. "And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, 
and every man his brother, saying, know the Lord : but they all shall 
know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the 
Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin 
no more." 

Speaking again of the restoration of Israel the same prophet adds a 
like passage in Chap. 32:37 — 40. A similar passage is to be found in 
Ezekiel 36:24—27. 

John 10:16. "Other sheep I have which are not of this fold ; them 
also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice ; and there shall be 
one fold, and one shepherd." 

John 10:26. "Ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as 
I said unto you." 



Abstract of Theology. 366 

verse 27. "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they 
follow me." . 

Rom. 8:28 — 30. "We know that all things work together for good 
to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his pur- 
pose." Paul now proceeds to tell who these are. "For whom he did 
foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of 
his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren. 
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called : and whom 
he called, them he also justified : and whom he justified, them he also 
glorified." This passage shows that foreknowledge, predestination to 
holiness, calling, justification, and a state of glory are inseparably con- 
nected, and hence that the election, from which they proceed, is to 
salvation. 

Eph. 1=4 — 9. This passage speaks of our being chosen before the 
foundation of the world, "that we should be holy and without blame 
before him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of 
children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of 
his will, to the praise ot the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made 
us accepted in the Beloved. In whom we have redemption through 
his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace ; 
wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence ; 
having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his 
good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself." 

2 Thess. 2:13. After referring to others who were to have the same 
outward privileges, but upon whom God would send strong delusion, 
the Apostle says in this verse, "But we are bound to give thanks 
alway to God for you, brethren, beloved of the Lord, because God hath 
from the beginning chosen you to salvation, &c." 

1 Peter 5:10. "The God of all grace who hath called us unto his 
eternal glory by Christ Jesus, &c." Here the apostle is speaking of 
that effectual calling, which is the result of Election and tells us that 
it is a call unto eternal glory. 



Abstract of Theology. 368 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE XXX. 



REPROBATION. 

The doctrine of Election is intimately associated with and involves 
that of Reprobation. The latter has met with even greater opposition, 
and misconstructions of what the orthodox teach on this subject have 
been even more numerous. 

The Scriptural statements as to Reprobation are that God, in 
Eternity, when he elected some, did like wise not elect others; that 
as resulting from this non-election, but not as efficiently caused by it, He 
passes by these in the bestowment of the special favours shown to the 
Elect, and, as in like manner yet further resulting, condemns men 
because of sin to everlasting destruction, and while they are in this 
state of sin and condemnation He effects, or permits the hardening of 
their heart so that His truth is not appreciated, but actually rejected. 

According to this statement there are four points involved in the 
decrees as to Reprobation. 

1. The decree not to elect. 

2. The decree to pass by in bestowing divine grace. 

3. To condemn for sins committed. 

4. To harden against the truth all or some persons, already sinners, 
and to confirm them in sin. 

In considering this doctrine we are met by the difficulty arising 
from the want of knowledge of God's purpose in action. It may be 
questioned whether w r e can arrive at this at all, yet, to understand 
this subject fully, we must know that purpose. If, therefore, we can 
not learn it, we see with what propriety w T e must submit simply to 
accept what God says. 



369 Abstract of Theology. 

A careful examination of the four points indicated will show that 
two of them have necessary reference to sinners, and that the other 
two have not. These are only thus connected, because God, in 
carrying out His purpose, has chosen to do it by the creation of man, 
and by permitting him to fall. This may be shown by supposing God 
to have some- great object in view to be accomplished by beings 
selected from those to remain holy; as through a part of the angelic 
hosts. He selects some as the ones through whom Tie will accom- 
plish his purpose, He rejects the others as not choosing so to use them. 
He gives to the former special grace to fit them for their work, or to 
remove from them any imperfection for it. His plan not having required 
that they be permitted to fall, the act of rejection and refusal to add the 
special grace given to others, constitutes in this case all of Reprobation. 
The purpose of God as to man, on the other hand affected a fallen race, 
and hence the other two points, in accordance with His determination 
to permit man to fall, are associated with and made a part of the 
decree of Reprobation, with which otherwise they would have no 
necessary connection. 

The fact that God has permitted man to fall is undoubted. It is 
beyond our power to show how it is consistent with his justice and 
mercy. That it is so should be acknowledged by all, because God 
has done it. 

In like manner must we deal with any result that flows from any 
doctrine in connection with that purpose. If it was right for God to 
permit man to fall, in order to carry out His purpose, it is right to 
condemn him for his sin. But the connection of condemnation for sin, 
thus permitted, with rejection from the number of those through whom 
that purpose is effected, extends no farther than that, from the 
circumstances of the case, the rejected in one part of the decree become 
the condemned in another. 

The relation borne by these two parts of the decree will be better 
seen by the following table showing what is done on the one side for 
the Elect and on the other for the rejected. 



i. Election from good pleasure. i. Rejection from good pleasure. 



Sin having been committed. 



2. To recover by the gospel and 
special grace. 

3. As thus recovered, to glorify. 



2. Not to recover, but to leave 
sinners. 

3. As left sinners, to condemn for 
sin and to harden some of those thus 
left. 




Abstract of Theology. 370 

In thus arranging this table no reference has been had to the views 
of either Sublapsarians or Supralapsarians. The. doctrine of Repro- 
bation is not affected by the scheme of either. This may be shown by 
presenting the order of the decrees as taught by each. 

The Supralapsarians teach that there was : 

1. God's decree to glorify Himself in the raising up of the church 
in which His grace should be peculiarly manifested. 

2. To create the men whom he had selected and rejected for its 
composition. 

3. To permit to fall. 

4. To send Christ to redeem. 
The Sublapsarian view»is : 

1. A decree to create. 

2. To permit to fall. 

3. To elect some to everlasting life. 

4. To send Christ for their Redemption and salvation. 

The only difference in the decree of Reprobation as held by either 
of these views is that the Sublapsarians suppose man to have been 
decreed as fallen, before decreed as elected, or rejected ; yet they deny 
that the rejection was because of the sin of the non-elect, for if so, 
they say,, the others would have been rejected, being equally in sin. 
The Supralapsarian view supposes that the Election to a certain 
purpose and the Rejection took place before the decree to permit to 
fall had been entertained. According to each theory, therefore, the 
last two points of the decree have only what has been called an 
accidental connection with it. 

This preliminary statement will prepare the way for. the Scriptural 
proof of the points indicated. 

I. The decree to reject some. 

1. This is involved in the doctrine of Election. The choice of 
some and not of the whole, involves the non-election and thus the 
rejection of others. 

2. But it is plainly taught in Scripture : 

(1.) In such passages as declare salvation not to be attained 
because God has not given the means. These will be presented under 
the next general head. 

(2.) In such as declare salvation not to be attained because men 
are not of the Elect, as 

John 10:26. "Ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep." 



371 Abstract of Theology. 

John 6:65. "No man can come to me, except it were given him of 
my Father.'" 

1 Cor. 1:26. "Ye see your calling, brethren, that not many wise 
men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called : 
but God hath chosen, &c." 

(3.) In all such passages as declare the preordination, or appoint- 
ment by God of thes^ persons either to condemnation, or destruction. 
Though not the direct result of this decree so as to be efficiently 
caused by it, these things yet prove the rejection of some who, under 
the circumstances thus accidentally arising, are thus preordained. 

1 Peter 2:8. "A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to 
them which stumble at the word, being disobedient, whereunto also 
they were appointed." 

Jude 4. "There are certain men crept in unawares, who were 
before of old ordained to this condemnation.'' 

1 Thess. 5:9. In this chapter, the Apostle tells of the evil that in 
the last day shall come upon certain ones, and then says, "For God 
hath not appointed us to wrath but to obtain salvation by Jesus 
Christ." 

(4 ) In the illustrations from the twins, the potter, and the clay in 
Rom.. 9 chapter. 

(5.) In the same chapter the words used are expressive directly of 
the truth involved. 

Bom. 9:18. "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, 
and whom he will he hardeneth." 

(6.) The Apostle was teaching this doctrine in the ninth chapter 
of Romans and in verses 20 and 21 anticipated and answered the ob- 
jection of one inquiring, why God should punish those who are thus 
fulfilling his will, by saying: "Nay but, man, who art thou that 
repliest against God ? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed 
it, why hast thou made me thus ? Hath not the potter power over the 
clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another 
unto dishonour." 

II. The second point of proof is that God passes by some in the 
bestowment of His special grace. 

That God does bestow many of the means of grace on many not to 
be saved is admitted ; but what needs to be shown is that there are 
special effective means which distinguish the Elect, and which are 
not bestowed on others. 



Abstract of Theology. 372 

The language of Scripture on this point is twofold. There are 
passages which simply speak of the withholding of privileges, and 
others which seem to go beyond this and assert a positive influence 
exerted to keep men from the truth. The meaning of this latter class 
of passages will be examined when we come to speak of the fourth 
point. At present they are presented as though they meant no more 
than the mere neglect to bestow these spiritual advantages. 

Deut. 29:4. "The Lord hath not given you a heart to perceive, and 
eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day. ' 

Job 17:4. "For thou hast hid their heart from understanding, 
therefore, shalt thou not exalt them." 

1 Sam. 2:25. After Eli had exhorted his sons to refrain from 
making the people of the Lord transgress, it is said, "notwithstanding 
they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the Lord 
would (or intended to) slay them." 

Isaiah 6=9. "Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but under- 
stand not ; and see ye indeed, but perceive not." 

Rom. 11:7.8. "Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for ; 
but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (accord- 
ing as it. is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes 
that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear ;) unto 
this day." 

Matt. 13:11 — 15. "Because it is given unto you to know the 
mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For 
whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more 
abundantly : but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away 
even that he hath. Therefore speak I unto them in parables, 
because they seeing, see not ; and hearing, they hear not, neither do 
they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, 
which saith, by hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand ; and 
and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive. For this people's 
heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes 
they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, 
and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and 
should be converted, and I should heal them." The parallel to the 
first part is Luke 810, and to the last Mark. 4 : 12. Similar passages 
also are in John 12:39.40 and Acts 28:25—27. 

2 Cor. 3=15. "Even to this day when Moses is read the vail is upon 
their hearts." 



373 Abstract of Theology. 

These texts will suffice when it is remembered that to the plain 
declarations here made, may be added the proof afforded by all those 
passages which, teaching that God bestows on the elect alone salva- 
tion, with such attendant blessings as without fail lead to it, show 
that these blessings are also withheld from the non- elect. 

At present it is assumed that this is done simply as an act of with- 
holding. What is meant by this will be shown hereafter. 

The question has been raised as to the two points considered above, 
whether the decree which has respect to them is positive or negative. 
By a positive decree is meant one which involves an actual direct 
exercise of the will of God. A negative decree is one in which the 
effect purposed flows as the result of the actual exercise of the will 
on something else. 

The answer to this question depends upon the nature of the union 
of the different parts of the decree of reprobation. By some 
theologians all four of the points involved in the decree are included 
in one and by Keprobation they mean che actual preordination to 
damnation of certain persons, just as effectively as the preordination of 
others to salvation by Election. Others conceiving this to be a false 
statement have separated the first and second points from the third and 
fourth, uniting them together, however, as one, and giving to it the name 
of Pretention. The great difficulty which these had to encounter, arose 
from the fact that while it is true that the mere neglect to bestow 
certain blessings on some, may take place without their being con- 
ceived of as in the mind, and may, therefore, be a mere negative act, 
the choice of some so necessarily involves the rejection of others as to 
require that rejection to accompany the act of choice. Rejection must, 
therefore, have accompanied Election. In the very fact that some 
were chosen,' was involved the rejection of others. [But even 
here it is not to be overlooked that rejection was not from 
God's favour, not from salvation, not from hope of mercy. Rejection 
has nothing to do with any of these. The loss of these results from 
sin.] But the intimate connection between chosen and not chosen 
does not exist in the bestowment of gifts and graces. These were 
conferred on those chosen and not conferred on those not chosen. 
Hence no positive act of God occurs, as to those not chosen. Con- 
sequently it is better to divide this part of the decree and regard 
Rejection as a positive act, and Pretention in bestowing grace as a 
negative one. 



Abstract of Theology. 374 

From the first and second, the third and fourth points result, con- 
sequentially but not effectively. This has been before shown. They 
do not result from these, so as to be their consequences, but they 
are actually caused only by the sin of man and are causally related 
only to it. It is neither as an effect of Election or Rejection or of 
Pretention that man has fallen, or sins, or is condemned, or will be 
destroyed. The simple effect is that he is not rescued, and con- 
sequently is left where he would have been without these acts. They 
do not lead to destruction. They simply do not rescue from it. 

III. The third point needs no proof at present. The condemnation 
for the sins man commits is too plainly taught in the word of God. 
From this condemnation the Elect are rescued by special grace, the 
Rejected are left, liable to it and consequently suffer from it. 

This decree of God is positive, involving specially an act of God's 
will in reference to the sin that is to be punished. 

IV. The fourth point of Reprobation is the hardening some or 
all of the Rejected against the truth, and the confirmation of them 
in their sin. 

Some or all sinners are spoken of as hardened because according to 
the definition given to this hardening process must it be limited or 
not. If the hardening of God means no more than the mere permission 
of those influences by which this is accomplished, then it is universal, 
because the evil influences of the heart and of Satan undoubtedly 
lead to a constant increase of indisposition for God's service. But if 
that process is to be regarded as a special act of God, it must be con- 
fined to those persons whom God by special acts of goodness or justice 
hardens so that they, in an extraordinary sense, are set against the 
truth and are lead to reject it. 

The language used in Scripture upon this point is very decided. 
The only question is about the meaning to be put on it as to a single 
point. It is best to state the two positions recognized as true and 
then add the other about which the discussion arises. 

1. God is represented as hardening the heart. 

2. This is admitted by all to be done so far as permitting it to 
work out its own destruction or by not interfering to prevent the evil 
influences which would have that tendency. 

It is not necessary to present the Scripture proof of these points 
which is abundant, because it will plainly appear in connection with 
the third which is, that 



375 Abstract of Theology. 

3. God does himself operate upon and affect the heart and faculties 
of the individual so that he is hardened against the acceptance of the 
truth of the Gospel. This point is supported by many passages of 
Scripture and should be, at least briefly, considered. 

(1.) It may here again be suggested that if, upon an examination 
of the Scriptures, this is seen to be God's teaching, we are bound, in 
the simplicity of faith, not only to receive it, but also to continue with 
firm confidence to believe and maintain that it is perfectly consistent 
with the character of God. The fact that we cannot show it to be 
such, ought not to make us hesitate a moment after we are convinced 
that God has taught it. 

(2.) But if so taught it may be made to appear perfectly consistent 
with God's righteous action and should be recognized as such. 

The contrary has been argued from the alleged fact that thus the 
sinner is prevented from accepting the gospel plan of salvation. But 
this is not true. His previous condition has already caused this. It 
is not any action of God withholding grace or conferring further 
disability that leads any man to reject the gospel. All are already 
in such a state of depravity that they will certainly refuse it. This 
is proved from the fact that those who reject the gospel are not only 
not confined to the hardened, but comprise all sinners, and that nothing 
can prevent this result but a positive act of God by which He rescues 
man from his evil nature as well as from its effects. 

The only evil then that arises to the sinner is that, under these 
influences, he sins more freely or more flagrantly than he would other- 
wise have done, or that his sinful nature more rapidly developes 
itself. But if it be wrong in God to do anything by which this shall 
be accomplished, it will be wrong to cast man into hell ; for the change 
of state from this life to that has this tendency. 

This illustration suggests indeed what God under these cir- 
cumstances is doing, which is nothing more than inflicting punishment 
on the individual because of his sin. He is a sinner in God's sight. 
His sin deserves punishment, and God punishes him by making his 
increased power to do wrong the punishment of the wrong already 
done. "He hath simply fallen into the pit his own hands have 
digged." 

In this view of the doctrine it is nothing worse than one very com- 
monly taught by Arminians as well as by Calvinists of all kinds, — that 
of the closing of a day of grace, when the time comes when the line is 
passed beyond which God no longer shows favour. That doctrine 



Abstract of Theology. 376 

which asserts an eternal shutting out of light as the penalty of resist- 
ance to truth is of precisely the same nature as this the most 
objectionable form in which this point of Reprobation can be presented. 

(3.) But, again, whence are the influences which thus tend to 
salvation. Do they arise from the rights of man, or from the claims 
which he as man may be said to have upon his Creator. Not at all. 
They are involved, not in Creation, but in- Redemption. They are 
influences, therefore, which belong, in the purpose of God, to the elect 
only. This is true, whether we regard the atonement as particular, or 
as general with a particular application. 

These influences, therefore, come to man simply as the chosen of 
God. God may withhold them from all others. He does withhold 
them from the heathen. He might withhold them from those to 
whom they are thus given. But if God may justly withhold from 
any, He may, with equal justice, stay the hand that would be 
stretched out to take what He has intended shall not be given. 
So long as the things which He withholds or prevents man from 
taking, are not things on which man has any claim, God cannot 
be charged with injustice in thus acting. Admitting this doctrine, 
therefore, in its worst form it may be defended. 

(4 ) But fourthly, we are liable to hold this form of the doctrine 
simply from want of consideration as to the method of God's action, 
as well as from overlooking the language of Scripture elsewhere. 
Let these be regarded and it will appear that God doe's not teach us 
that he directly hardens the hearts of any. We must remember 

(a.) That there is a sense in which God is said to do everything 
that is done Whatever happens must either be done by Him, or 
permitted by Him ; and must be done, or permitted directly, or 
indirectly, according as His action is immediate or through secondary 
means. Now it is the custom of the Scriptures to speak of God as 
doing whatever is done in any of these ways. If, therefore, we have 
no indications of the mode of his action, we cannot, from the mere de- 
claration that the Lord did it, decide that he did it directly, or indi- 
rectly ; efficiently or permissively. Thus Joseph said to his brethren, 
"It was not you that sent me hither, but God," and yet we know that 
these men were willing instruments of God. The Scripture declarations 
as to reprobation, or hardening, are not stronger than these which 
are thus used relative to other matters where we know that God only 
acted indirectly and permissively. 



377 Abstract of Theology. 

(b.) There are causes at work fully sufficient to accomplish all 
that God would thus purpose without requiring efficient, and causal 
action. There are the sinful depravity of the heart and the wiles of 
Satan. It can hardly be supposed that, when the work to be done 
could thus be effected, God would not leave it to be thus done. 

(c.) In James 1:13.14. the apostle uses language inconsistent with 
the idea that God efficiently leads to sin. "Let no man say when he 
is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with 
evil, neither te^mpteth he any man. But every man is tempted, when 
he is led away of his own lust, ai*4 enticed." 

(d.) Whenever the heart is hardened as the result of any action 
of God, it is always as the result of merciful action, which should have 
had an opposite tendency. Thus was it with Pharaoh, and thus was 
it with the Jews in the time of Christ. 

(5.) An examination of the passages which refer to the hardening 
of the heart will show that (a) some expressly declare this hardening 
to have been by means, or by the individuals themselves ; (b) that, 
others are explained by parallel or allied passages to have this 
meaning ; and (c) that there is nothing inconsistent with this view. 

1. Passages which affirm this hardening to be the work of the 
individuals themselves. 

2 Kings 17:14. The people of Israel carried away by the Assyrians 
are said to have hardened their necks like their fathers. See also 
Neh. 9:16.17—29, and Jer. 7:26. 

2. Passages which furnish explanations. To these belong the 
famous passages concerning Pharaoh. There could be no stronger 
expressions than those there used. 

(1.) God foretells that he will harden Pharaoh's heart. Ex. 7:3. 

(2.) It is expressly said that He hardened it. Ex. 7:13. 

(3.) God declares that for this very purpose did He raise up 
Pharaoh that He might show His glory. 

(4.) And yet Pharaoh is expressly declared to have hardened his 
own heart. Ex. 8:15.32. Notice in this case the way of hardening ; 
whenever the curse was sent, Pharaoh yielded ; whenever it was re- 
moved, his heart was hardened. And, that this was not an accidental 
connection, is seen by the fact that in Ex. 9:34. it is said of Pharaoh 
that, "when he saw the rain and hail, and the thunders were ceased, he 
sinned yet more and hardened his heart." 



Abstract of Theology. 378 

Another passage, which has often been commented on, is that in 
1 Kings, 22nd chapter, where Ahab calls on his prophets and receives 
assurance of success. He sends for a prophet of God who gives him the 
same answer, probably ironically, as Ahab immediately turns and says 
to him, "How many times shall I adjure thee that thou tell me nothing 
but that which is true in the name of the Lord." The prophet then 
proceeds to tell of the scattered house of Israel, as a sheep that have 
no shepherd, thus foretelling evil. The king says to Jehoshaphat, his 
officer, "did I not tell thee that he would prophecy no good concern- 
ing me, but evil." Then the prophet proceeds to tell a vision wherein 
God is represented as wishing to destroy Ahab and asking of all his 
hosts, who will persuade Ahab that he may go and fall at Ramoth 
Gilead. And after various replies, one Spirit came and said, that he 
would persuade him by being a lying spirit in the mouth of all his 
prophets. And the prophet adds, "Now, therefore, behold, the Lord 
hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets and the 
Lord hath spoken evil concerning them." This is the verse, 1 Kings 
22:23, that is frequently referred to as a case of God's misleading 
Ahab. Independently of the fact that the prophet uses drapery for 
what he says, he tells the King distinctly God's will, and, as his 
prophet who ought to be heard, declares the truth. This passage 
ought not to weigh for a moment in favour of the idea that God seeks 
effectively to harden, and thus to destroy. 

Again, we have a class of passages, for they are many, such as the 
one before referred to as showing Reprobation, Matt. 13:11 — 15. 

That one may be taken as explanatory of others. The doctrine 
meant was so plainly understood that the language is not always 
guarded. It may not have been by Christ in its utterance. But we 
have here the intended meaning manifested in a single phrase, "and 
their eyes they have closed lest at any time they should hear &c," 
"and be converted and I should heal them." 

The passage in Isaiah 63:17 is easily explained in like manner, "0 
Lord, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways and hardened our 
hearts from thy fear." 

3. Passages not inconsistent with this interpretation. On the 
contrary, in view of what has been said, this interpretation seems 
most natural. These are fair examples, 

Deut. 2:30. "But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by 
him: for the Lord thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart 



379 Abstract of Theology. 

obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth 
this day." 

Acts 19:9. "But when divers were hardened, and believed not, 
&c, * * * he (Paul) departed from them." 

Rom 9:18. "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have 
mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." The example referred to 
here is that of Pharaoh which, as we have seen, is a case of self- 
hardening under mercies. 



Abstract of Theology. 380 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE XXXI 



Outward and Effectual Calling. 

The atoning work of Christ was not sufficient for the salvation of 
man. 

That work was only Godward, and removed only all the obstacles 
in the way of God's pardon of the sinner. 

But the sinner is also at enmity with God, and must be brought to 
accept salvation, and must learn to love and serve God. 

The first step, here, is to make known to man the gospel, which 
contains the glad tidings of this salvation, under such influences as 
ought to lead to its acceptance. 

The Gospel is, therefore, commanded to be proclaimed. to every 
creature, inasmuch as there is in the work of Christ a means of 
redemption for every one. 

This is the external call of the Gospel. 

This proclamation, however, meets with no success because of the 
wilful sinfulness of man, although, in itself, it has all the elements 
which should secure its acceptance. 

God knowing that this is true, not only of all mankind in general, 
but even of the elect whom he purposes to save in Christ, gives to 
these such influences of the Spirit as will lead to their acceptance of 
the call. This is called Effectual Calling. 

1. The Gospel is commanded to be preached to all. This is proved 

(1.) By such passages as show that the outward privileges of 
God's word are no longer to be confined to Israel, but are to be 
extended to the Gentiles also. This had been foretold in prophecy. 



381 Abstract of Theology. 

Gen. 18:18; 26:4; Psalm 2:8; Isa. 42:1.4; 49:6.7.8; 55:5; 60:3; 
65:1—12; Jer. 16:19; Mai. 1:11. 

It is also taught in the New Testament in various ways. 

Matt. 8:11—13;. 12:18—21; 21:33—41; 22:1; 28:19; Mark 
12:1— 9 ; Luke 4:20— 27 ; 14:16—24; 20:9—16; John 3:16 ; 4:20. 
21.39. 

(2.) By the history of the extension of this gospel to the Gentiles 
by the Apostles and their contemporaries, who so preached it, as to 
show that the Gentiles were not first to become Jews in order to be 
made partakers of that gospel. 

Acts 10th Chapter. Peter sent to Cornelius. 

Acts 11:1 — 18. Peter's report of that visit. 

Acts 11:19 — 30. The gospel sent to Phenice, Cyprus, and Antioch. 

Acts 13th Chapter. The labours of Paul and his companions. 

Acts 15th Chapter. The Council at Jerusalem. 

Rom. 1:13 — 16, and generally the whole of the Epistle and of Paul's 
other Epistles to the churches, especially Galatians. 

The above two classes of passages serve to show how the universal 
preaching of the gospel was impressed upon the early Christians, and 
consequently that they would be led to give full meaning to other 
unlimited expressions. 

(3 ) By such passages as directed the gospel to be preached to all. 

Mark. 16:15; Acts 2:21; Rom. 10:13. 

(4.) By such as show the freeness with which salvation was 
offered to all as individuals. Acts 2:39 ; 11:14 ; 16:31 ; 2 Cor. 5:19— 
21 ; 1 Tim. 4:9 ; Tit. 2:11 ; Rev. 22:1. 

(5.) The restrictions which separated the Jews and the Gentiles 
being removed, the universal offers of salvation made previously to 
the Jews, may be now applied to all men in general. Isaiah 1:18; 
55:1—7; Ezek. 18:21,32; 33:11. 

(6.) The language of Christ to those to whom he spake may also 
thus be applied. Matt. 11:28 ; John 7:37. 

The above classes of passages show that this call of the gospel is 
made indiscriminately to all men. No difference of nation, or class, 
or condition ; no question as to election, or non-election, nor as to the 
purpose to make it effectual enters into this call. It is made to every 
one. Nothing is known to those who are to proclaim the gospel which 
can make its offer to one any more sincere than to another. What- 



Abstract of Theology. 382 

ever differences men may make from personal feeling, or national 
sympathy, or local attachment, are not only not commanded by it, but 
are often inconsistent with it. 

2. This offer of the gospel meets of itself with no success. 

(I.) The testimony ol all who have preached it has been that, 
without special influence of grace from God, the preaching has been 
in vain. The prayers made to God constantly for such aid furnish 
universal evidence of such convictions. 

(2.) The same testimony is as universally given by those who have 
received the gospel. Each one ascribes his salvation to the special 
influences of God. 

(3.) This also is the teaching of the Scriptures which declare this 
fact. Eph. 2:8. is only a specimen of the universal teaching, which 
will appear more fully elsewhere. 

3. This failure is not due to any deficiency in the gospel. 

(1.) None can doubt the fulness of the scheme of redemption 
contained. 

(2.) None can question the facts as to personal sin and need of 
Christ which are made known. 

(3.) None can deny the freeness with which it is offered. 

(4.) No one can deny that he is one of those to whom it is offered. 

(b.) All persons admit that God will give it to any who will 
forsake sin and strive to lead a new life trusting Him for help. 

(6.) Every one is convinced that he can turn away from all acts 
of sin and live the contrary life of holiness and obedience, if he will. 

(7.) It is universally acknowledged that God is worthy to be 
believed in every statement He makes. 

It is because of the above and kindred facts that our Lord says, 

John 11:48. "The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge 
him in the last day." 

4. The Scriptures teach us why this word is rejected. It is not 
from want of evidence, nor from intellectual doubt, but always because 
of some thing sinful, either in the heart or will. 

Some of the reasons which the Scriptures thus give are presented 
in Hill's Bible Readings, p. 99, as follows : 

(1.) Pride which may be national. Matt. 3:9 ; John 8:33 ; Acts 
13:45 ; 17:5 ; 22:21.22 ; intellectual, Matt. 11:25 ; John 9:39—41 ; 
Rom. 1=21.22 ; 1 Cor. 1:19—21 ; or social, John 748. 

(2.) Self-righteousness. Mark. 2:16; Luke 7=39; 18:10—14; 
Rom. 10:3. 



383 Abstract of Theology. 

(3.) Love of praise. John 5 : 44 ; 12:43. 

(4.) Love of the world. 2 Tim. 4=10 ; James 4=4 ; 1 John 2:15. 

(5.) Love of money. Mark 10=17—24; Luke 16:13.14; 1 Tim. 
6:9.10. 

(6.) Cares of the world. Matt. 13:7.22 ; Luke 10:40. 

(7.) Fear of man. John 7=13 ; 9:22; 12=42. 

(8.) Worldly self-interest. Mark 5=16.17 ; John 11=48. . 

(9.) Unwillingness to separate from impenitent friends. Luke 
9:59—62. 

(10.) Unwillingness to believe what they cannot understand. 
John 3=9 ; 6=52,60 ; Acts 17=32 ; 1 Cor. 2=14. 

(11.) Unwillingness to have their sins exposed. John 3:19.20. 

(12.) Unwillingness to submit to God's authority. Luke 19:14 ; 
20:9—18. 

(13 ) Prejudice against the messenger. Matt. 1224; 13;57 ; John 
1:46; 6=42; 7=52; 9:29. 

(14.) Spiritual blindness. Matt. 13:15 ; 1 Cor. 2=14. 

(15.) Unfaithfulness to the light which they had. John 12=36. 

(16.) Waiting for a convenient season. Acts 24=25. 

(17.) Frivolous excuses. Luke 14=18. 

(18.) Lack of deep convictions. Matt. 13=5 ; 22=5. 

(19.) Lack of earnestness. Luke 13=24. 

(20.) Neglect of the Bible. Luke 24=25; John 5=39; 7:27: Acts 
17=11.12. 

(21.) Neglect of religious meetings. John 20 : 24. 

(22.) Blindness to special opportunities. Luke 19:44. 

(23.) Desire for special signs. Matt, 12=38.39; 16:1—4; John 
6:30; 1 Cor. 1=22. 

(24.) Regard for human traditions. Matt, 15:9; Mark 2:23— 28. 

(25.) Insincerity. Matt. 15:7.8 ; 21=25—31 ; Acts 24=26. 

(26.) A controversial spirit, Matt, 22:15—40. 

(27.) A murmuring spirit, Matt. 25=24. 

(28.) Having no desire for God. John 5=42 ; Rom. 1:28. 

(29.) Hatred of God and of Christ, John 15=22—25. 

(30.) Hatred of the truth. Acts 7=51—54 ; 2 Thess. 2=10—12 ; 2 
Tim. 4=3. 

(31.) The power of the devil. Matt. 13=4.19; John 8:44: 2 Cor. 

4:3.4. 

5. The offer of the gospel thus referred to is denominated the 
External Call. 






Abstract of Theology. 384 

It is made to man through the senses, and consists in a declaration 
of the nature of salvation and an offer of it upon the conditions of faith 
and repentance. It is enforced by statements as to the sinful condition 
of man and his need of a Saviour ; by the command of God to repent 
and believe ; and by exhortations and threats, as inducements to the 
acceptance of salvation through it. . It is spoken of in the Scriptures, 
as a call, in passages which have no reference to its becoming effectual, 
and in some which contrast it with the effectual calling of others. 
Prov.l:24; Isa. 65:12 ; Matt. 9=13. 

6. But, in contrast with this usage, is the more common one, by 
which the called in the Scriptures are those who are actually brought 
to the reception of the truth and participation in salvation. 

(1.) This is seen in the name for the collective bodies of Christ's 
disciples, each of which is called in the Greek Ecclesia. The word for 
calling is klesis, and an Ecclesia is composed of those called out of 
the world into an ecclesia, a church. 

(2.) In those passages which speak to church members of their 
calling as something different from the mere outward call. Rom. 8 : 30 ; 
9=11.24; 1 Cor. 1:9.26; Gal. 1=6.15 ; 1 Thess. 2:11; 5=24; 2 Thess. 
2:14; Eph. M8; 4=1.4; 2 Tim. 1:9; Ileb. 3=1 ; 1 Pet. 2:9 ; 5:10; 
2 Pet. 1:3.10. 

(3.) Christian believers are spoken of as the called. Rom. 1:6; 
8:28 ; 1 Cor. 1:24 ; Heb. 9:15 ; Rev. 17:14. 

7. The effectual call of these is due to the purpose and act of God. 
Matt. 11:25; Rom. 8:29.30; Rom. 9:15.16; 1 Cor. 1:26—31, 
especially verse 30. 

8. The agent by which this is accomplished is the Holy Spirit by 
whose influences the saved are led to the exercise of repentance and 
faith. John 6:44.46 ; 1 Thess. 1:5.6. 

9. Such an agency is necessary to overcome the moral condition 
of man as "blind" and "dead in trespasses and sins." 1 Cor. 2:14; 
2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 2:1.5. 

10. In connection with this doctrine of the Effectual Calling of 
some, has arisen a question as to the sincerity of God in making the 
outward call to those who do not accept. It is said that the fact that 
it is made by Him, knowing that men will not accept it without His 
efficient grace, and yet not purposing to give that grace, argues 
insincerity in the offer. 



385 Abstract of Theology. 

To this the following replies may be made. 

(1.) If it be true that He does make the outward call, and does 
not give to all, but to some only, the efficient grace ; the very character 
of God is an assurance of His sincerity. The real question here then 
is an inquiry into these two facts. If they be taught in the Scriptures, 
it is impious, and blasphemous to doubt God's sincerity. 

(2.) This inquiry would never have arisen, had God only made the 
general offer and left all men to perish in its rejection. But, if so, 
his additional grace to some does not in any respect argue his 
insincerity in the partial grace thus shown to others. 

(3.) The very nature of the gospel offer, as before stated, shows 
God's sincerity. It is one which has all the inducements for its 
acceptance which one can imagine, and that acceptance depends simply 
upon the willingness of each man to take it. 

(4.) Lest any should doubt the sincerity of God He assures us 
of that fact in His word. Paul describes Him, 1 Tim. 2:4, as one 
"who will have all men to be saved." God himself says, 
Ezek. 33:10.11, "Therefore, thou son of man, speak unto the house 
of Israel. Thus ye speak, saying. If our transgressions and our sins 
be upon us, and we pine away in them, how should we then live? 
Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the 
death of the wicked ; but that the wicked turn from his way and live; 
turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways ; for why will ye die, house 
of Israel." 

Compare this with Heb. 6:13—18. "For when God made promise 
to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by him- 
self, Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will 
multiply thee. And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained 
the promise. For men verily swear by the greater : and an oath for 
confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing 
more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability 
of his council, confirmed it by an oath : That by two immutable things, 
in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong con- 
solation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set 
before us." 

11. The attempt has been made by Lutheran theologians, and 
adopted by some others to harmonize the sincerity of God's External 
Call with the salvation of some only, by supposing that God gives His 
Spirit, which makes salvation effectual in some, equally to all, but 
that those who reject the gospel resist the Spirit given to them, and 



Absteact of Theology. 386 

thus refuse, while the others yield to it and thus are saved. They 
say, therefore, that it is thus true that all have the Spirit equally, and 
yet that the salvation of the saved may be said to be by the grace 
of God. 

The natural objection to this explanation is that not only is the 
salvation of men ascribed to grace, but to grace alone, to the exclusion 
of all merit, and work. See Rom. 4:27 to 5=25 ; 9:11 and Gal. 2:16. 
But if some do not resist and others do, however much of grace there 
is, there is certainly some merit in those not resisting by which they 
can boast over others who resisted. Notice especially Rom. 4 : 27. 
''Therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace ; to the end the promise 
might be sure to all the seed." 

Another objection is that the salvation of the saved is distinctly 
based in the word of God on the Election of some, "According as he hath 
chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should 
be holy and without blame before Him in love. Having predesti- 
nated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself 
according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory 
of his grace wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." 
Eph. 1:5.6.7. 



Abstract of Theology. 388 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE XXXII. 



Regeneration and Conversion. 

At the outset of a discussion of these two subjects we are met by 
the question, whether they are not one and the same thing. They 
are unqaestionally so intimately associated that it is difficult to 
separate them and point out the distinctions between them. The 
Scriptures connect the two under theone ideaof the new birth, and teach 
that not only is regeneration an absolute essential in each conversion, 
but that in every intelligent responsible sou) conversion invariably 
accompanies regeneration. It is not strange, therefore, that they are 
often confounded. Yet, after all, the Scriptures also teach that 
regeneration is the work of God, changing the heart of man by His 
sovereign will, while conversion is the act of man turning towards 
God with the new inclination thus given to his heart. 

Regeneration. 

I. It is best first to collect together the various terms and ex- 
pressions in which this whole matter is taught. 

1. Forms of the verb "gennao" which means "to beget." 

John 1=13; 3:3.4. (two places) 5.6.7.8 ; 1 Cor. 4:15 ; Phil. 10 ; 1 
John 2:29 ; 3:9, two places ; 4:7 ; 5:1, three places ; 5:4.18, two places. 

2. Compound forms of gennao. 

1 Pet. 1=23. "Being born again not of corruptible seed, but of 
incorruptible, by the word of God which liveth and abideth forever." 

Titus 3:5. "He saved us by the washing of regeneration and 
renewing of the Holy Ghost." 



389 Abstract of Theology. 

3. The word "apekuesan," is used in James 1:18, and means to bring 
forth or bear young, and there evidently means to bring to the con- 
dition of sonship. 

4. "Ktisis" and "Ktidzo," which mean creation and create, are 
found in 2 Cor. 5:17 ; Gal. 6:15 ; Eph. 2:10.15; 4=24. 

5. "Sunedzoopoiese," to quicken together with (Christ.) Eph. 2 : 5; 
Col. 2:13. 

In addition to the above uses of single words are the following pas- 
sages which speak of the word of God as an effective instrument, but not 
as a creative power. These, however, do not connect this instrument 
with either regeneration or conversion necessarily ; but speak of it 
(a) as a means of partaking of the divine nature, 2 Pet. 1:4; (b) as a 
means of purifying, John 15 : 3 ; (c) as a means of Christian defence, 
Eph. 6:17 ; and (d) as an instrument of powerful convictiou and 
destruction of the wicked, Heb. 4:12. 

II. From the Scriptural teaching we see that the whole work of 
Regeneration and Conversion is included under the one term 
regeneration. 

It is true that but few of the passages refer to anything save the 
work of God ; yet these few sufficiently teach the use of the word in 
regeneration to lead us not to reject, as a part of it, that result of 
God's act, which, in connection with the word, leads to the full union 
of its subject with Christ through repentance and faith. 

The passages in connection with Paul as God's instrument, 1 Cor. 
4:15, and Philemon 10, would not be conclusive, but they are made 
so by the others. 

However much James 1:18 suggests a different aspect of the 
work, namely, the bringing forth that which has been begotten, still 
it so nearly connects that idea with the begetting as to create doubt 
if the whole work may not be virtually involved. 

But, 1 Pet. 1:23, by the use of the compound of gennao, shows that 
all the work of the Spirit, including both the new heart, and the 
leading of it to conscious faith, is properly to be spoken of by the same 
term as a mere change of heart. 

The whole work is thus spoken of, however, because God is operative 
from the beginning to the end. but this does not prove that He does 
not operate differently in one part from what He does in the other. 

III. The Scripture teaching is that God operates immediately 
upon the heart to produce the required change, by which it is fitted 



Abstract of Theology. 390 

to receive the truth, and mediately through the word in its reception 
of that truth. 

1. He operates immediately upon the heart to prepare the way 
for the truth. This is evident 

(1.) From the description given of man's spiritual condition. 

(a) As spiritually dead. Rom. 4d7 ; Eph. 2:1, 

(b) As blind. Eph. 4:18. 

(c) As slaves to sin and Satan. John 8=34; Rom. 617.19. 

(d) As needing deliverance from the power of darkness. Col. 1:13. 

(e) As incapable of knowing or discerning the things of the Spirit. 
1 Cor. 2=14 ; Eph. 4:18. 

(f) As incapable of changing himself. Jer. 13:23. 

(g) As defiled in conscience. Tit. 1:15. 

These passages show man in a condition from which he must be 
rescued even to understand and appreciate the truth of God. 

(2.) The Scripture attributes the birth to the will of God 
exclusively thus showing that in some aspect it is not to be regarded 
as due to the reception of the truth. John 1:13 

[For sections (3), (4), (5) and (6), see Hodge's Outlines, p. 451.] 

(3.) The influence of the Spirit is distinguished from that of the 
word. John 6:45.64 65 ; 1 Cor. 2=12—15 ; 1 Thes. 1:5.6. 

(4.) A divine influence is declared to be necessary for the reception 
of the truth. Ps. 119:18 ; Acts 16=14 ; Eph. 1:17—20. 

(5.) Such an internal operation on the heart is attributed to God. 
Matt. 11=25; Luke 10:21 ; Phil. 2=13; 2 Thess. Ml ; Heb. 13=21. 

(6 ) The nature of this influence is evidently different from that 
effected by the truth. Eph. 1:19 ; 3:7 ; 2 Tim. 2:25. 

(7.) This influence is spoken of as a preparation of the heart for the 
truth; which, therefore, must be distinct from the truth or its reception 
Luke 8=8.15 ; Acts 16:14. 

This preparation of the heart comes from God. 1 Chron. 29:18.19; 
Ps. 119=18; Prov. 16:1; Acts 16=14; Rom. 9:23. 

2. The Spirit acts mediately through the word. 

(1.) He inspired that word and sends it forth for the accomplish- 
ment of the ends designed. John 14:16; 2 Tim. 3:16. 

(2.) He aids the ministry and others in making it known. 1 Cor. 
4=7 ; 2 Thess. 3=1. 

To the extent that these are his agents he uses the word. 

(3.) The instrument thus used is in itself effective as truth. Heb. 
4:12. Therefore, Christians are commanded in their spiritual warfare 



391 Abstract of Theology. 

to take the word of God as the sword of the Spirit. Eph. 6:17. It is, 
however, made especially so to the heart prepared for it by his 
illuminating influences, which reveal its beauties and its suitableness, 
and by the aid of the memory which recalls, and the conscience which 
applies, and the affections which lay hold upon it. 2 Tim. 3:15.16.17. 

(4.) Christians are, therefore, said to be "begotten," that is brought 
forth, (James 1 : 18), with the word of truth, because that is the seed 
sown in the prepared ground through which they are led by repent- 
ance and faith to union with Christ and sonship of God. 

(5.) Since this use of the word is due to its own fitness to 
present motives to action, the Spirit of God is not limited to this word 
alone but uses such other truth, and such events of life as may be 
effective towards the contemplated end. Thus any events in God's 
providence, as afflictions, or danger, or personal sins, or the .conversion 
of others, or aught else that may lead to seeking God, are used as a 
means of awakening, or of giving deeper conviction, or of enforcing the 
Scripture truths which lead to conversion. 

(6.) This is especially true of the ordinances of Baptism and the 
Lord's Supper duly set forth before mankind. So far as these 
ordinances are fitted to convey truth, or to impress duty they are 
instruments in regeneration. 

(7.) But neither of them regenerates or confers regeneration. 

(a) This is not done by the Lord's Supper. It has been argued 
from John 6:51 — 58, where Christ promises eternal life to those who 
shall eat his flesh and drink his blood, and denies it to all who shall 
not. The language used refers to spiritual participation in his 
salvation. It is similar to the promise to the woman at Sychar that 
"whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never 
thirst ; but the water that I shall give him shall be a well of water- 
springing up into everlasting life.'' John 4:14. It is argued that 
Christ must have meant the partaking of his real body, because he 
did not correct the Jews who, because they so understood him, rejected 
him. But, John 8=51 — 53, he did not correct a similar mistake which 
led to a similar result when he said in verse 51, "If a man keep my 
saying he shall never die." 

(b.) Even more distinctly is this true of Baptism. Spiritual effects 
are spoken of in connection with this ordinance. Thus we have "the 
washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost." Titus 3:5. 
We have Paul exhorted by Ananias, Acts 22:16, "arise and be baptized 
and w r ash away thy sins," and the language of Christ, John 3:5, 



Abstract of Theology. 392 

'"Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter 
into the kingdom of God." The first of these has reference to the 
cleansing influence of regeneration by the Spirit in like manner as his 
renewing, which is spoken of in the immediate context and has no 
reference to baptism. That the last refers to baptism is at least 
doubtful ; but admitting that it does, which is doubtless true of the 
second we have here outward Baptism, only as symbolizing an inward 
change and not producing it. The following reasons plainly show that 
neither of these ordinances have regenerating power. 

(1.) That ordinances can only be signs of grace and cannot con- 
fer it. 

(2.) They may convey truth symbolically, and only such truth is 
fitted to affect the mind. But nothing symbolized by these two can 
confer regeneration upon those receiving them. 

(3.) They are appointed to be used only by those who have been 
regenerated. Baptism is an act of obedience, symbolizing the death 
of believers to sin, and resurrection to new life, and setting forth their 
union with Christ in his death and burial. The Lord's Supper is to 
be partaken of by those already, as Christian believers, united together 
in church fellowship. 

(4.) That this was the use of Baptism is evident from the practice 
of the Apostolic Christians. Acts 2:41. The baptized had "gladly 
received the word.'' This followed repentance, and preceded baptism. 
The Eunuch was baptized after he had believed with all his heart. 
Acts 8:37. Paul before his baptism had received the Lord Jesus and 
his eyes had been opened and the Holy Ghost givers Acts 9:18. 
Cornelius and his house also received the Holy Ghost and spake with 
tongues before their baptism. Acts 10:44 — 48. The Jailer at 
Philippi manifestly believed before he was baptized. Baptism with- 
out antecedent faith was treated as invalid in certain disciples at 
Ephesus. Acts 19:1 — 5. 

(5.) That this was also true of the Lord's Supper is shown by the 
fact that it was partaken of only by churches, and the members of 
churches are everywhere spoken of and treated as converted persons. 
Also by the further fact that it was a memorial service ("in remem- 
brance of me") and a memorial implies previous " knowledge of the 
persons and facts remembered. But only such a knowledge and 
remembrance could be blessed, as involved faith in Jesus. 1 Cor. 
11:28.29. 



393 Abstract of Theology. 

(6.) The Spirit does not make truth effective by giving 'it 
additional force to that which it has naturally, but by so affecting the 
mind that the man is so prepared to receive it that it has its own due 
force. Thus he changes the mind, illuminates the mind, helps it to 
appreciate and lay hold of truth. Only thus does He make truth 
effectual. Therefore, the outward washing or partaking can have no 
effect to renew, or regenerate the heart, which must itself have been 
prepared, before it can even appropriate the truths conveyed by these 
ordinances. 

The above statements are only intended to meet the views of 
Romanists and such others as claim regenerating influence of sacra- 
ments, and not those of such as make Baptism only a condition of 
pardon. The latter claim that regeneration is through the word only 
and are met by the proofs that the Spirit acts independently of the 
word. 

Conversion. 

I. This is the result of regeneration. The new heart is prepared 
to turn to God and does actually so turn. Without regeneration, the 
sinfulness of man keeps him away from God, causes him to set his 
affections upon self and his own pleasure, and to find gratification in 
things which are opposed to God and holiness. The regenerated 
heart has new affections and desires and is, therefore, fitted to seek 
after God and holiness. 

If. It is both the act of God and of man co-operating with him. 
I. It is the act of God. It is thus described in the Scriptures. 
1 Kings 18:37. "Thou hast turned their heart back again." 
Ps. 80:3. "Turn us again, Lord God of hosts, cause thy face to 

shine and we shall be saved." 

Ps. 85:4. "Turn us, God of our salvation." 

Song of Sol. 1:4. "Draw me, we will run after thee." 

Jer. 30:21. "I will cause him to draw near, and he shall approach 

urrto me." 

Jer. 31:18. "Turn thou me and I shall be turned." 

Ezek. 36:27. "And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause 

you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments and do 

them." 

John 6:44. "No man can come to me, except the Father which 

hath sent me draw him." 



Abstract of Theology. 394 

2. It is the act of the regenerated heart actively co-operating in 
thus turning. 

Deut. 4:30. '-If thou turn to the Lord." 

Prov. 1:23. "Turn you at my reproof." 

Hosea 12:6. "Therefore, turn thou to thy God." 

Isaiah 55:7. "Let him return unto the Lord." 

Joel 2:13. ," Rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn 

unto the Lord your God." 

Acts 11:21. "A great number believed and turned unto the Lord." 

* 

III. The question naturally arises what is the nature of conver- 
sion. In reply it may be said thtt it consists : 

1. Not in mere outward re'ormation. 

2. Not in return from backsliding. 

3. But in the turning of the heart to God and holiness. It is a 
turn of the thoughts, desires, and affections of the heart from sinful 
and carnal lusts and pleasures toward holy things, and God, and 
Christ, and salvation. It is a turning from darkness to light, from 
the power of SaUn to God. [See Gill 2.132 — 4.] It consists "in a 
man's turning actively to God under the influence of divine grace." 
[Gill 2:135 ] 

IV. This conversion comprises : 

1. A knowledge of the true God, and acceptance of Him as such. 

2. Knowledge of personal sin, guilt, and condemnation. 

3. Sorrow for sin and desire to escape condemnation. 

4. Determination to turn away from sin and seek God. 

5. Conviction of personal need of help in so doing. 

6. Knowledge of Christ as a Saviour from sin. 

7. Personal trust in Christ and his salvation. 

Note. A man in one sense may be called converted as soon as he 
has truly turned to God and is also seeking to know and do His will. 
This is that amount of conversion which is so nearly contemporaneous 
with regeneration as to be liable to be supposed to exist at the same 
moment with it, and which indeed in a being capable of thought on 
such subjects must be its immediate effect. 

But what the Scriptures and our common language comprise in this 
word is repentance and trust in God's saving power, and, in connection 
with Christian knowledge, trust in Jesus Christ as a Saviour. The 
attainment of the fulness of such conversion is by the gradual 
appreciation of truth, resulting not only from regeneration, and 
knowledge but from spiritual illumination of the mind. 



395 Abstract of Theology. 

V. The relation of regeneration to conversion will, therefore, 
appear to be one of invariable antecedence. 

Wherever the appropriate truth is at the time present, its relation 
is almost that of producing cause, for the prepared heart at once receives 
the truth. Hence, as this is so generally the case, they have been 
usually regarded as contemporaneous and by some even as identical. 
But that regeneration is the invariable antecedent is seen. 

1. From the fact that the heirt is the soil in which the seed, the 
word of God, is sown and that seed only brings forth fruit in the 
good soil. The heart is made good soil by regeneration. 

2. Regeneration (as in infants) may exist without faith and 
repentance, but the latter cannot exist without the former. Therefore, 
regeneration precedes. 

3. Logically the act of God enabling, must, in a creature, precede 
the act of the creature thus enabled. But this logical antecedence in- 
volves actual antecedence, or the best conceptions of our mind deceive 
us and are not reliable. For this logical antecedence exists only because 
the mind observes plainly a perceived dependence of the existence of 
the one on the other. But such dependence demands," if not causal, at 
least antecedent existence. Here it is only antecedent. 

VI. There is not only antecedence, but in some cases an appre- 
ciable interval. 

1. This is true even of conversion regarded as a mere turning to 
God. Between it and regeneration must intervene in some cases some 
period of time until the knowledge of God's existence and nature is 
given, before the heart turns, or even is turned towards that God. 

(1.) This must be true of all infants and of all persons, otherwise 
incapable of responsibility, as for example idiots. 

(2 ) There is no reason why it should not be true of some heathen. 
The missionaries of the cross have been sought by men, who knew 
nothing of Christianity, but whose hearts, unsatisfied with the 
religion of their fathers, were seeking restlessly for what their soul 
was crying out. 

2. It is still more manifestly true of full Christian conversion. 
(1.) The Scriptures teach this in many examples of persons pious, 

holy, and fearing God, yet unacquainted with the full truth which 
secures union with Christ. 

Ethiopian Eunuch : Acts 8:26—40. 

Paul : Acts, chapters 9 and 26. Gal., chapters 1st and 2nd. 



Abstract of Theology. 396 

Cornelius the Centurion : Acts 10:2. 

Lydia: Acts 16:14. 
. (2.) Experience of ministers in all ages with persons seeking and 
attaining salvation confirms this idea. The attainment of conversion 
may be marked by stages. The sinner is at first totally indifferent. 
The word produces on him no effect. Then (1.) There is an evident 
willingness to give serious attention to the truth of God. God has 
opened the heart as he did that of Lydia. (2.) There is conviction 
of sin, sense of its vileness, and of its dangerous effects. (3.) The 
soul, oppressed by these, strives to do something by which to attain 
salvation, but finds all in vain. (4.) At last accepting the truth of 
God's word it rests in trust of a personal Saviour. 

VII. The term conversion is not technically applied to any 
change, except that which follows upon regeneration, and consists in the 
Godward turning of one heretofore turned entirely away from God. 
The return of men who have backslidden, or fallen into grievous sin 
is also called "a return to God," and such a return is possibly what is 
called "conversion" in Peter's case. Luke 22:32. But conversion is 
theologically used exclusively of the first act. 



Abstract of Theology. 398 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE XXXIII. 



REPENTANCE. 

The Scripture doctrine of Repentance is to be learned in part from 
the meaning of the original Greek word used to express it. and in part 
from its application to a matter which is within the sphere of morals. 

I. There are two forms of words used in the New Testament which 
are translated repent and repentance. Only one of these is used of 
the repentance associated with salvation from sin. 

This is the verb •'metanoeo" and the corresponding noun "metanoia." 
The other verb is "rnetamelomai," the noun of which does not 
appear in the New Testament, but occurs in the Septuagint in Hosea 
11:8. The verb is used in the Septuagint in Psalm 110:4; and 
Jer. 20:16. It is also the word used in the New Testament in Matt. 
21:29, which says of the son who had refused to obey his father's 
command to work in the vine-yard, "afterward he repented and 
went." It likewise is found in Matt, 21:32 and 27:3, this latter 
being the case of Judas. Paul uses it in Rom. 11:29 ; and 2 Cor. 
7:8.10. It is also the word used in Heb. 7:21. In all other places, 
translated repent and repentance in the New Testament, the original 
is metanoeo or metanoia. This word means to reconsider, to perceive 
afterwards, and hence to change one's view, mind, or purpose, or even 
judgment, implying disapproval and abandonment of past opinions 
and purposes, and the adoption of others which are different. In all 
cases of inward change there is not necessarily a change of outward 
conduct, nor is such inward change accompanied by -regret. These 
results of the inward change would flow from the nature of that about 
which that change has arisen. 



399 Abstract of Theology. 

We arrive, therefore, at the meaning of Christian repentance partly 
through the meaning of these Greek words, but also partly because 
it is exercised about a question of morals. It is seen that it involves 
a change in the outward life because such change is a result of the 
change of inward opinions. It also includes sorrow for sin because a 
change of view as to the nature of sin and of holiness must be accom- 
panied by regret and sorrow as to past acts of sin. 

The word metamelomai means to change one's care, to regret ; the 
idea of sorrow always accompanying it. 

The two words are nearly synonymous in their secondary meaning, 
and each is used in this secondary meaning in the New Testament. 
Metanoeo, however, traces the feeling of sorrow and the change of 
life back to an inward change of opinion and judgment as to the 
nature of sin and holiness, and of the relations of man and God.. It 
is perhaps on this account that it is exclusively used for true repent- 
ance in the New Testament. This is not simply sorrow, or remorse, 
which may pass away, or lead in despair to other sins, or fill the soul 
with anxiety; but a heartfelt change in the inward soul towards God 
and holiness, which is lasting and effective, and which may be 
associated with peace and joy in believing. 

II. To set forth more explicitly what Repentance is, it may be 
stated that it includes 

1. An intellectual and spiritual perception of the opposition 
between holiness in God and sin in man. It does not look at sin as 
the cause of punishment but abhors it because it is vile in the sight 
of God and involves in heinous guilt all who are sinners. 

2. It consequently involves,. sorrow and self-loathing, and earnest 
desire to escape its evil. The penitent soul does not so much feel 
the greatness of its danger as the greatness of its sinfulness. 

3. It also includes an earnest turning to God for help and deliver- 
ance from sin, seeking pardon for guilt and aid to escape its presence. 

4. It is also accompanied by deep regret because of the sins com- 
mitted in the past, and by determination with God's help to avoid 
sin and live in holiness hereafter. The heart heretofore against God 
and for sin is now against sin and for God. 

From these facts it will be seen that 

(1.) The seat of true repentance is in the soul. It is not of itself 
the mere intellectual knowledge of sin, nor the sorrow that 
accompanies it, nor the changed life which flows from it ; but it is 






Abstract of Theology. 400 

the soul's apprehension of its heinous character, which begets the 
horror and self-loathing which accompany it and the determination 
to forsake sin which flows from it. 

(2.) That true repentance is inconsistent with the continuance in 
sin because of abounding grace. 

(3.) That true repentance consists of mental and spiritual emotion, 
and not of outward self imposed chastisements. Even the pious life 
and devotion to God which follow are described not as repentance, 
but as fruits meet for repentance. 

III. The Scriptures teach that the author of true repentance is God 
operating by truth upon the renewed heart. 

Acts 5:31. Christ is said to have been exalted ''to give repentance 
unto Israel and remission of sins." 

Acts 11:18. "Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repent- 
ance unto life." 

The means used is the preaching and other exhibition of the truth. 
Repentance like faith comes through the hearing of the word. By 
this men are exhorted to that duty, and gain the knowledge of the 
truths taught by God. through spiritual apprehension of which men are 
led to the truth. 



Abstract of Theology. 402 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE XXXIV. 



FAITH. 

I. Its important position. 

As disbelief was so prominent in the sin of the first Adam so faith 
is most prominent in the redemption through the second Adam. 

It holds an important connection with every act and condition of 
salvation. 

It is by faith that men come into vital union with Christ, through 
faith that they are justified, through faith that they can acceptably 
worship, through faith that the Christian lives, through faith that his 
sanctification progresses, it being the means of his conquering the 
world, of his exercising hope in the future, and becoming more and 
more identified with Christ in his spiritual reign here and hereafter. 
These facts evince its importance and the necessity of fully under- 
standing what is meant by it. 

II. Its meaning. 

It corresponds with our words belief and trust, — with belief so far 
as it refers to the acceptance of facts and statements, or of the veracity 
of a person, — with trust so far as a person or object is made the 
foundation of reliance. We believe a fact, a statement, a person ; we 
trust or rely upon that fact, statement or person as something upon 
which we build. In the one case we have faith in, in the other we 
put faith in. 

The noun "pistis' r and the verb "pisteuo" are used in each of these 
senses in the Scripture, and also in the two unitedly ; (1.) as to mere 
belief of the truth either savingly or otherwise. 2 Thess. 2:13 ; Heb. 
10:39 ; John 2:22 ; John 5:46 ; Acts 26:27 ; Jas. 2=19, 



403 Abstract of Theology. 

(2.) In the sense of reliance. 

John 1:24. "Jesus did not commit himself unto them." 

John 7:5. "Neither did his brethren believe in him." 

2 Tim. 1:12. "I know whom I have believed." 

1 John 4:1. "Beloved, believe not every Spirit." 

But the almost invariable usage of the New Testament includes 
both elements, the belief of the facts and person, and reliance upon 
them and him for salvation. 

The difference between these three forms of belief is apparent. 

1. Mere belief may be weak and motiveless, and thus it may result 
in indifference as to action ; or it may be a mere opinion, the holding of 
which, or not, is not felt to be a matter of consequence ;" or it may be 
a mere notion taken up without sufficient evidence. 

2. Mere trust in a person or thing, may result from confidence in 
the word of another, or in the actions of others, or from something in 
our experience teaching us that we may venture, though we know no 
reason why we should thus trust. Thus some one tells us that this is 
the train w T e wish to take — or we go over a bridge over which others 
have gone — or we ford -a stream through which we see by tracks that 
others have driven. Here our trust is much more, if not altogether, 
in the testimony of others rather than in any knowledge of, or con- 
fidence in that to which we commit ourselves. 

It is only through the combination of the two that we have faith, 
which must be an intelligent trust. By it we believe not only in him 
upon whom we trust, but we do so because we believe the facts which 
make him trustworthy. 

Hence it is that the Scriptures use it in the twofold sense, uniting 
the two ideas in the case of believers in Christ, because not only do 
they rely upon Jesus, but, from the belief of the facts concerning him 
taught in God's word, they know whom they have believed, and why 
they should believe him. 

Christian faith, therefore, is personal reliance upon Christ for 
salvation because of belief of God's testimony as to our sinful and 
ruined condition, and as to what Christ has assuredly done to save us. 

It is based, therefore, upon the knowledge of this testimony as given 
by our own consciences and the word of God. It is consequently an act 
of the mind. As the truth thus apprehended is spiritual, so it is 
apprehended spiritually by the heart. As it occurs in the heart of a 



Abstract of Theology. 404 

sinner, so it must be the act of a regenerated heart which alone is 
inclined to such belief as constitutes trust. And it is attained by this 
heart through the illuminating influences of the Spirit of God. 

III. The nature of saving faith will further appear by noticing 
its objects. 

These objects are not mere abstract truths, nor opinions, nor facts, 
but only such as are connected with a person. 

1. One object of faith is God the Father, not considered alone as 
the Father, but both as Father, and as representing the Godhead. 

(1.) As representing the Godhead. As such, it has Him also for 
its object, not in all the aspects he bears to man, for it does not 
apprehend Him as Creator, Preserver, Ruler, or Benefactor. These are 
aspects believed in, but they are not at the basis of saving faith. 

This has respect to Him only in those relations in which He is 
viewed in special connection with salvation. 

(a) As a God of holiness, hating sin, Himself infinite in purity, 
before whom even the angels are chargeable with folly. 

(b) As a God of justice, who will certainly punish every sin, even 
the least. 

(c) As the righteous judge, who will show no favour, and who has 
appointed a day wherein He will judge the world. 

(d) As the omniscient searcher of hearts, who knoweth even the 
msot secret thoughts and intents of the heart. 

(e) As the almighty and living God, into whose hands it is a 
fearful thing to fall. 

(f) As the God who delights not in the death, but rather in the 
salvation of the wicked. 

(g) As the God, whose love for the world has sent His own Son 
for its salvation, 

(h) As a God, merciful and gracious, and long suffering, &c. 
Ex. 34:6.7. 

(i) As a God, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin. 

(j) As a God, promising and giving the aid of His Spirit to such 
as seek Him. 

(k) As a God, that justifies those who trust in Tlim for pardon 
through Christ. 

(1) As a God, that can and will secure the final salvation of His 
people. John 10:28.29; Rom. 11:29; Phil. 1:6; 1 Pet. 1:5. 
(2.) In God the Father as Father. 



405 Abstract of Theology. 

(;t) Who hath, from the beginning, chosen us in Christ. 2 Thess. 
2:13; Eph. 1:4. 

(b) Who hath loved us. 2 Thess. 2:16 ; 1 John 4:19. 

(c) Who hath adopted us as sons, 1 John 3:1.2 and consequently 
as joint heirs with Christ, Rom. 8=17. 

. (d.) As the unchangeable bestower of grace. James 1:17; Rom. 
11:29. 

(e) As the author of exceeding great and precious promises. 2 
Pet. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1-20. 

2. Another object of faith is Christ. 
(1.) In his person and work. 

(a) As Son of God, giving dignity and value to the work of atone- 
ment. 

(b) As man, as duly representing us ; as having properly suffered 
for us ; and as fully sympathizing with us. 

(c) As the Godman, so uniting the divine and human natures in 
one person, that we can say that he that is God, the Son of God, the 
Lord of glory, bore our sins and died for our salvation. 

(2.) In his testimony, as to himself as sent by God, and as to his 
work as approved of God. 

(3 ) In his abounding love and grace, as seen in his humiliation, 
and the greatness of his personal sacrifice for us. 

(4.) In his earnest desire, that sinners should come to God 
through him. 

(5.) In his assurances of the answers of our prayers. 

(6.) In his promises of grace unto the end. 

(7.) In his constant presence with us, sympathizing, aiding 
pleading for us and securing our acceptance with God. 

(8.) In all his offices, Prophet, Priest, and King. 

3. The Holy Spirit is also an object of faith. 
(1.) As to His promised presence. 

(2.) As to the work within the heart, being His work. 
(3.) As to His power to accomplish it unto the end. 

Remark. It is thus seen that not only the Godhead as such, but 
the separate persons in it, are objects of saving faith. Hence the 
union of them all in Baptism. Even if it be true that "baptized 
in the name of the Lord Jesus" means that a different formula was 
used, still this baptism involved a knowledge of the Trinity, and would 
have been virtually a baptism with respect to that Trinity. 



&> 



Abstract of Theology. 406 

IV. The nature of saving faith may be still further seen by no- 
ticing other words by which it is expressed. [See Gill, 2:395 — 400 for 
full statement of following points taken, except the fourth, from him.] 

1. As looking to Christ. Isa. 45:22 ; Micah 7:7. Illustrated by 
the uplifted serpent. John 3:14.15. 

2. As coming to him. Isa. 55=1 ; Matt. 11:28 ; John 6:37.44.45.65. 

3. As fleeing to him and laying hold upon him. Heb. 6:18. 

4. As eating and drinking him. John 6:51 — 58. 

5. As receiving him. Col. 2:6. 

V. That the above is the nature of saving faith will still further 
appear by contrasting with it other kinds of faith which have been 
attempted to be substituted for it. 

1. Implicit faith. Romanists claim that faith must be in the 
church, — simply in it ; in its doctrines so far as known ; but believed 
upon the church's authority and not upon any other apprehension of 
its truth. 

This is really to make the church a fetish, a mere charm which 
gives salvation simply to one who trusts salvation in its hands. 

It is as though, with our belief implicitly in the Bible, we should 
say that one who believes the Bible is saved ; whether he knows its 
contents or not. 

Our trust, neither in Christ, nor in the Bible, is of this kind. It is 
based upon an intelligent, not a blind confidence of the truths taught. 
We simply put blind faith, as to anything we comprehend, that that 
thing is true because God says so. But the whole hope of salvation 
and faith, in every other respect which is effective and operative, is in 
what we believe, not in the fact that it is true, but in the knowledge 
which the fact that it is true conveys to us. Our salvation does not 
rest in the belief that the books of the Bible teach the truth, but in 
belief of the things which they teach. 

2. Historical faith. This is a mere intellectual belief of the truths 
taught in the Scriptures as historical facts ; as that there was such a 
person as Jesus, who, being die Son of God, wrought out salvation and 
has now commanded all men to repent and be baptized for the remis- 
sion of sins. 

One fact that favours the substitution of this for the faith' which 
trusts with the heart in Christ, is that in the apostolic days, such was 
the danger of professing Christ that none would be apt to do so, who 
did not heartily believe in him. Another is that as the new religion, 
presented itself in salient points in opposition to the old, the accept- 



407 Abstract of Theology. 

ance of these points could be due only to a heartfelt belief in Jesus. 
Hence the language of 1 John 4:15, "Whosoever shall confess that 
Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God," and 
other similar passages. 

Fortunately, however, we have sufficient teaching to show what is 
the true faith. 

There is the case of Simon Magus, Acts 8:13 — 24. Manifestly he 
had historical faith, and yet the Apostle is led to say to him, verse 21, 
"Thou hast neither part, nor lot in this matter ; for thy heart is not 
.right in the sight of God." The case of Judas also is one of bare 
historical faith. 

That faith, however, is a work of the heart, is manifest from the 
following passages : 

Acts 2:37. "They were pricked in their heart." 

Eom. 10:8 — 10. "Shalt believe in thine heart that G^dhath raised 
him from the dead, *• * * with the heart man believeth unto 
righteousness." 

See an illustration of the difference between historical faith and 
hearty acceptance of the truth in John 12:42.43 and Kom. 10:16 — 21. 

2 Cor. 3:3. "In fleshly tables of the heart," also verse 6, "the letter 
killeth, but the Spirit giveth life." 

Heb. 10:22. "Let us draw near with a true heart." 

2 Tim. 2:22. Christians are described as those who "cali on the 
Lord out of a pure heart." 

It is also proved by all we have seen of the necessity and nature 
of Regeneration, Conversion, and Repentance. 

Hodge, [Outlines, p. 473,] gives this further proof from the effects of 
faith. "The Scriptures declare that by faith the Christian "embraces 
the promises" "is persuaded of the promises," "out of weakness is made 
strong," "waxes valiant in fight," "confesses himself a stranger and 
pilgrim seeking a better country." As faith in a threatening neces- 
sarily involves fear, so faith in a promise necessarily involves trust." 
"Besides, faith rests upon the trustworthiness of God and, therefore, 
necessarily involves trust. Heb. 10:23 and the whole 11th chapter." 

3. Assurance of personal interest in Christ's salvation ; so that 
one may say, I know that Christ died for me, that I am one of his 
elect, that my sins were removed by him, and I have been reconciled 
to God by him. 

Such cannot be the nature of saving faith, because 



Abstract of Theology. 408 

(1.) This is not the experience of an early, but of an advanced 
stage of Christian experience. 

(2.) Because this is not the object of Christian faith. That object 
is Christ, and the statements of God's truth concerning him and 
salvation. Those statements are general so far as the revelation is 
made. They are made personal by our acceptance. But our faith 
enters into that condition. If we can satisfy ourselves that our faith 
is undoubtedly genuine, not merely temporary, but actually one 
rooted in Christ, we may gain this assurance, but that assurance would 
rest not on God's word, nor on Christ's salvation, but on the evidence 
afforded by the Spirits work in our hearts. [See Hodge's Outlines, 
P . 478.] 

(3.) The Scriptures give an example in Paul of a true Christian 
who still continued in doubt as to personal salvation, as 1 Cor. 9:27 ; 
Phil. 3:12—14. 

(4.) "From the exhortations addressed to those who were already 
believers to attain to assurance as a degree of faith beyond that 
which they already enjoyed." [Hodge's Outlines, p. 478 ] 

(5.) "From the experience ot God's people in all ages." [Hodge's 
Outlines, p. 478.] 

Rem. 1st. The assurance, however, which is not thus a part of 
saving faith, is one which can be attained and doubtless frequently 
has been attained. 

(a) This is directly asserted. Rom. 8:16 ; 2 Pet. 1=10 ; 1 John 
2:3; 3:14; 5;13. 

(b) Scriptural examples are given of its attainment, as Paul. 
2 Tim. 1:12; 4:7.8. 

(c) "Many eminent Christians have enjoyed an abiding assurance, 
of the genuineness of which their holy walk and conversation was an 
indubitable seal." [Hodge's Outlines, p. 478.] 

Rem. 2nd. The grounds upon which a man can be assured of 
salvation are 

(a) The divine truth of the promises of salvation. 

(b) The inward evidence of those graces unto which those promises 
are made. 

(c) The testimony of the Spirit of adoption, Rom. 8:15.16, wit- 
nessing with our Spirits that we are the children of God, which Spirit, 
Eph. 1:13.14 ; 2 Cor. 1:21.22, is the earnest of our inheritance, 
whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption. [West. Conf., chap. 
18, quoted in Hodge's Outlines, p. 479.] 



409 Abstract of Theology. 

"This genuine assurance," says Hodge, (Outlines, p. 479) "may be 
distinguished from that presumptuous confidence which is a delusion 
of Satan, chiefly by these marks. True assurance, 1st, begets un- 
feigned humility, 1 Gor. 15:10; Gal. 6.14; 2nd, leads to ever 
increasing diligence in practical religion, Ps. 51:12.13.19; 3rd, to 
candid self-examination and a desire to be searched and corrected by 
God, Ps. 139:23.24; 4th, to constant aspirations after nearer con- 
formity and more intimate communion with God, 1 John 3:2.3." 

4. Temporary or delusive faith. This has many marks of true 
faith. Hence it is not only the intellectual reception of historical facts, 
but a joyful acceptance of them. This is the case of the seed of the 
stony places which represents the man that heareth the word and anon 
with joy receiveth it. But the parable teaches us that the soil was not 
prepared. It is, therefore, not in the regenerated heart that it arises. 
The evidence of its temporary character, therefore, will soon appear. 
It lacks the following characteristics of saving faith and may thus be 
distinguished from it. 

(1.) Continuance in trusting Christ, and in devotion to him and 
his service. 

(2.) Desire to be useful in the work of Christ. 

(3.) Attendance to Christian duty. 

(4.) Love of prayer and the word of God, and of the meetings with 
his people for worship. 

(5) Devoted love to the children of God as such. 

(6.) Progress in knowledge of self and sin, and of Christ as a 
Saviour. 

(7 ) Progress in loving holiness and hating sin, with increased 
conviction of, and humility concerning sinfulness. 

VI. It is through this saving faith that we attain vital union with 
Christ. It is, however, not a meritorious ground, nor a procuring 
cause of such union, but simply the mere act of clinging to him, and 
trusting in him which becomes the instrumental cause of such union. 
Rom. 4:16. 

1. There are several senses in which Christians are spoken of as 
in Christ. 

(1.) By election ; "Chosen in him." 

(2.) By federal representation in his atoning work. 

(3.) From the union of believers with him by faith. 

Rom. 16:7. "Who also were in Christ before me." 



Abstract of Theology. 410 

2 Cor. 5:17. "Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new 
creature." 

2. This union is represented in the Scriptures by the figure of the 
vine and i*s branches in John 15:1 — 6, by that of a living stone unto 
which as lively stones Christians are built up a spiritual house, (1 Pet. 
2:4 — 6), by Christ, as the head, of whom Christians are the members, 
(Eph. 4:16), and as husband and bride (the church), Eph. 5:25 — 32. 
[Hodge's Outlines, p. 483 ] 

3. On the one hand this union does not involve any mysterious 
confusion of the person of Christ with the persons of his people ; and 
on the other hand it is not such a mere association of separate persons 
as exists in human societies. But it is a union which (1.) determines 
our legal status on the same basis with his, (2.) which revives and 
sustains, by the influence of his indwelling Spirit, our spiritual life 
from the fountain of his life, and which transforms our bodies and 
souls into the likeness of his glorified humanity. 

It is therefore 

"(1.) A spiritual union. Its actuating source and bond is the 
Spirit of the head, who dwells and works in the members." 1 Cor. 
6:17; 12:13; 1 John 3=24; 4:13. 

"(2.) A vital union, i. e. our spiritual life is sustained and deter- 
mined in its nature and movement by the life of Christ through the 
indwelling of the Spirit." John 14=19 ; Gal. 2=20. 

"(3.) It embraces our entire persons, our bodies through our 
Spirits." 1 Cor. 6:15.19. 

"(4.) It is a legal or federal union, so chat all of our legal or cove- 
nant responsibilities rest upon Christ, and all his legal or covenant 
merits accrue to us." 

"(5.) It is an indissoluble union." John 10:28 ; Rom. 8:35.37 ; 
1 Thess. 4:14.17. 

"(6.) This union is between the believer and the person of the 
Godman in his office as Mediator. Its immediate organ is the Holy 
Spirit, who dwells in us, and through him we are vitally united to 
and commune with the whole Godhead since He is the Spirit of the 
Father, as well as of the Son." John 14:23; 17:2L23. [Hodge's 
Outline?, pp. 483 and 484.] 

VII. The difference between faith and hope. 

That they are not the same is evident from 1 Cor. 13:13, where they 
are plainly distinguished from each other ; also in Rom. 5=2 — 5 ; 1 
Pet. 1:21 ; Heb. 11:1. Illustrated by Rom. 4:18. 



411 Abstract of Theology. 

It is objected that the view taken, that saving faith involves trust, 
makes it the same as hope, and, therefore, faith must be of such a 
nature, as not to include trust. 

But Christian faith and hope differ 

1. In their nature, (a) Faith is reliance upon something now present 
as known or believed. Hope is -looking forward to something in the 
future, with more or less expectation of receiving it. 

Faith is belief, Hope is expectation. Each involves the idea of 
trust, but with the use of different prepositions. Faith is trust in or 
upon any person or thing, Hope is trust of or for any person or thing. 

See every passage in Cruden's Concordance where "hope" is, of 
which the following are specimens. Acts 23:6; 24:15; 26=6; 28=20; 
Rom. 8=24; 15=4; 1 Cor. 15=19; 2 Cor. 3:12; Col. 1:5.23.27; 1 
Thess. 5:8. 

(b) Joyful expectation enters into the nature of hope, but not into 
that of faith. It is only because the things believed beget a joyful 
hope, that the Christian's trust can be mistaken for hope. 

2. Hope is the result or effect of faith and, therefore, not faith 
itself. Rom. 5:2—5 ; Rom. 15:4.13 ; Gal. 5:5 ; Heb. 11*1. 

3. They differ in their objects. Faith rests upon Christ and his 
work for our salvation and upon the promises made of blessings. Hope 
rests in the blessings resultant from that work and those promises. 
Its object is salvation, freedom from sin, heaven, glory hereafter.' We 
can not say we have faith in salvation, but in the Saviour and his 
work; we have not faith in future freedom from sin ; but we have it in 
the promised deliverance. Likewise we have not faith in heaven or 
glory ; but in these as promised to us. 



Abstract of Theology. 412 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE XXXV. 



JUSTIFICATION. 

No doctrine of Scripture is more important than that of justification. 
It involves the whole method of the salvation of sinners. It is vitally- 
connected with all other fundamental doctrines. A correct concep- 
tion of it cannot exist when other truths are ignored, or only partially 
received. The opinions held upon this point control in great part the 
theological views in general of all christian individuals and parties. 
The importance of a correct knowledge of what God has taught on 
this subject cannot therefore be exaggerated. 

The discussion of this doctrine will be best presented by a defini- 
tion of the word Justification, accompanied by proof of the several 
statements involved in that definition. 

Justification is a judicial act of God, by which, on account of the 
meritorious work of Christ, imputed to a sinner and received by him 
through that faith which vitally unites him to his substitute and Sa- 
viour, God declares that sinner to be free from the demands of the 
law, and entitled to the rewards due to the obedience of that sub- 
stitute. 

I. It is a judicial act of God. 

That God is its author is emphatically declared by Paul in Rom. 
8:33; "It is God that justifieth." As he is the lawgiver and judge 
so must He also be the justifier. 

The act is not one of sovereignty, as is election, because He does not 
justify merely of good pleasure, but because the demands of the law have 



413 Abstract of Theology. 

been met. Yet his act is free, and of grace, because it is of His own 
choice that He accepts a substitute, and because Christ and his meri- 
torious work have been graciously secured and given by God Himself. 
See Rom. 3:24. 

The virtue of the act consists in its being His judicial act. Any 
one might perceive, or declare the demands of the law to be satisfied 
upon knowledge of that fact. Any one might proclaim that the re- 
wards of Christ's merit have been secured. But, whether declared of 
the value and efficacy of Christ's work in itself, or of its application to 
an individual, such a declaration would not be justification. It only 
becomes so when uttered by God in His capacity as Judge. All 
others could only recognize or declare the fact. The declaration of 
the judge sets the sinner free from all demands of the law, and con- 
fers upon him all the blessings appertaining to this new condition. 

This judicial act of justification is made necessary because the law 
has been broken. One who has completely fulfilled the law needs not 
to be justified. His position before the law is that of one personally 
just or righteous ; not of one that is justified, or declared righteous, 
or treated as such though not personally so. He may be said to be 
justified, because recognized or treated as such, though the ground of 
such action is that he is personally just. Thus the term "justified," is 
properly applied to the doers of the law, and that of "just" denied to 
the mere hearers of the law in Rom. 2:13. But, while the terms may 
be thus used of one personally just, he, nevertheless, needs no such jus- 
tification because his righteousness is not questionable. His position, 
like that of those who fully obey human laws, is recognized without 
any special act affirming it. 

Hence it is, that the Scriptures, so commonly use the word just 
(dikaios) of one who is, in some one, or all respects, perfectly conformed 
to the law by his own acts, and who is, to that extent, therefore, person- 
ally holy, applying the term not to men only, nor even to Christ, who 
was made under the law, but also to God Himself. See Matt. 1:19 ; 
5.45; 9=13; Luke 23=50 ; Acts 3=14 ; 7=52; 22:14; Rom. 3 :26. This 
usage has given rise to the opinion of some that justification is not 
simply a judicial act, but that it involves holiness in the one justified 
and in the case of justified sinners an infusion of holiness in the act of 
justification. 

But that this is an error is obvious, 

1. From the fact that justification is presented as the opposite of 
condemnation, (Rom. 8:33.34), and not of sinfulness. Condemnation 



Abstract of Theology. 414 

is never spoken of as the infusion of a corrupted nature and conse- 
quently justification would not involve that of a holy nature. 

2. That the justified are not declared in Scripture to be free from 
sin or possessed of holy natures, but are represented as still struggling 
against sin, and not only sin which arises from outward temptations, but 
that proceeding from the motions of sin within. 

3. The change of nature which causes that of character is called 
in the Scriptures "regeneration," and differs essentially from justifi- 
cation. The former is the special work of the Holy Spirit. The 
latter is the act of God the Father. That is an effect wrought 
inwardly, which developes itself in a continuous and progressive 
process which the Scriptures called sanctification. If justification 
includes an infused righteousness as the opposite of sinfulness, then 
it includes sanctification, and there is no ground for the scriptural 
distinction between them. 

4. The usage of other words in connection with justification shows 
it to be a forensic act. The term "righteousness" (dikaiosune) which, 
like righteous (dikaios), is used in connection with personal right- 
eousness, as of God in Act 17:31, and of Christ "the Faithful and 
True", Rev. 19:11, and of the Martyrs in Heb. 11:33, and of human 
obedience to the law in Rom. 10:3.5 ; Phil. 3:6.9, is, in connection with 
God's justification of sinners, applied, though chiefly by the Apostle 
Paul, to "the righteousness which God bestows or accepts," and which 
is imputed to the sinner or reckoned to his account. 

Another term, dikaiosis, signifies "the act or process of declaring 
righteous," viz: justification. 

The word dikaioma, which means "that which is declared right- 
eous", and hence a statute or command, as something which the law, or 
God declares to be a righteous requirement, is used in connection with 
justification for "the deed by which one declares another righteous, 
and is partially equivalent to dikaiosis." 

The principal word which is used for expressing the nature of God's 
action in justification is dikaioo (to justify), which means every where 
"to declare righteous" "to regard and represent as righteous" and not 
"to make righteous" in the sense of conferring personal righteousness. 

This usage of terms shows plainly that justification is a judicial act 
of God, in which he does not confer holiness, but only declares the 
relation occupied to the law by the one who is in Christ. 



415 Abstract of Theology. 

II. The Ground. of this Justification. 

It is manifest from what has already been said that the justification 
of the sinner must depend on something not personally his own. The 
Scriptures teach that it is due not to his own good works but to the 
meritorious work of Christ which is imputed to him, or put to his 
account. 

1. They teach us negatively that it is not due to his own good 
works. 

(1.) They expressly deny that justification can be by the works of 
the law. Rom. 3:20; Gal. 3.11 ; Eph. 2:9. 

(2.) They assert that, could it thus have been attained, Christ's 
death has been useless. Gal. 2:21 ; 5:4. 

(3.) Sinfulness is declared to be the condition of every man, which 
excludes the possibility of works untainted by sin. Rom. 3:10. 

(4.) The law is said to demand such complete obedience that 
"whosoever shall keep the whole law and yet offend in one point he 
is guilty of all." James 2:10. 

(5.) We are told that "if there had been a law given which could 
have given life, righteousness should have been by the law." Gal. 3:21. 

(6.) It is likewise stated as necessary to the certainty of attaining 
salvation that "it is of faith that it might be of grace." Rom. 4:16. 

These statements show that, not only are men not saved by 
works alone, but not even by works combined with grace. Justifica- 
tion cannot arise therefore from the good works of men. Not even 
has its condition been so modified that a partial obedience can be 
accepted, whether this stands alone or is supplemented by, or is supple- 
mentary to the merits of Christ. Something entirely outside of man 
must constitute the basis of justification. 

2. The word of God declares this outside something to be the 
meritorious work of Christ. 

(I.) In general 

(a) By declaring that the righteousness of God is connected with 
our relations to, or belief in Christ. Rom. 3:22.26; 5:1 ; 10:4; 1 Cor. 
1:30. 

(b) By stating that redemption is in Christ Jesus. Rom. 3:24. 

(c) By setting him forth as the only foundation of salvation. 

(d) By asserting salvation to be found only in Christ. Acts 4:12. 

(e) By asserting a definite relation between our sin and Christ, and 
his righteousness and ourselves. 2 Cor. 5:21. 



Abstract of Theology. 416 

2. More specifically by connecting the salvation and justification 
of man with Christ's merits. 

This may be shown. 

(a) In connection with his sufferings, or what is usually called his 
passive obedience. 

1. Christ is presented as "the Lamb of God," John 1 : 29, in evi- 
dent allusion to the sacrificial offerings of the olden days, and Paul 
speaks of him as one "whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation 
through faith in his blood." Rom. 3;25. 

2. He is presented as one who has died for us. Rom. 5:6.8; 8 ; 34 ; 
14:15; 1 Cor. 8:11; 2 Cor. 5=14.15; 1 Thess. 5:10; and specifically as 
having died for our sins, 1 Cor. 15=3. 

3. We are said to be justified by his blood (Rom. 5:9) ; and recon- 
ciled by his death (Rom. 5:10), and by his cross (Eph. 2:16). 

(b.) Our justification is due also to the active obedience of Christ, 
and not to passive obedience only. 

1. Righteousness involves character, conduct and action, even 
more than suffering endured as penalty. The sinlessness of Christ is 
therefore plainly taught, and especially in connection with imputation. 
2 Cor. 5:21. 

2. The gracious salvation he brings is said to establish the law. 

3. He assures us, that he came to fulfill the law. Matt. 5:17. 

4. The obedience of Christ is not only contrasted with that of 
Adam, but is declared to be the means by which many shall be made 
righteous. Rom. 5.19. 

It thus appears, that the ground of justification is the whole meri- 
torious work of Christ. Not his sufferings and death only, but his 
obedience to, and conformity with the divine law are involved in the 
justification, which is attained by the believer. The question is here 
sometimes asked, how the active obedience of Christ can avail to 
us, when he was himself a man and under the law, and owed obe- 
dience personally on his own behalf. The answer to this is two- 
fold, in each case depending upon the doctrine of the incarnation 
of the Son of God. On the one hand, the position was one volun- 
larily assumed by the Son of God. He was under no obligation 
to become man. He was not, and could not be made man without 
his own consent. In thus voluntarily coming under the law, his 
obedience would have merit to secure all the blessings connected with 
the covenant, under which he assumed such relations. But beside 
this, the fulfilment of the law would not simply be that fulfilment due 



417 Abstract of Theology. 

by a mere man, which is all the law could demand of him on his own 
behalf, so that the merit secured is that due to the Son of God, thus 
as man rendering obedience to the law. That merit is immeasurable 
and is available for all for whom he was the substitute. 

III. The Imputation. 

This meritorious work of Christ, called in the Scriptures "the right- 
eousness of God," is imputed by God to those whom He justifies, as the 
ground or cause of their justification. It is reckoned to their account 
They are treated as though they had themselves done that which 
Christ has done for them. 

This imputation is in accordance with the action of God through- 
out the economy of human affairs. Adam as the representative of 
man sinned, and his sin has been imputed to all of his descendants, 
and they are treated as though personally sinners. Christ stood also 
as the representative of his people and their sins were imputed to him 
and he was treated as though personally a sinner. Likewise his 
righteousness is imputed to them, and they are treated as though per- 
sonally righteous. 

In each of these cases there is, however, no such transfer as makes 
one personally what he is representatively. It is not the imputed sin 
of Adam which makes men personally sinners. The corrupted nature 
is one of the natural consequences of that sin, and is a punishment of 
it. So the imputation of our sin to Christ did not make him person- 
ally a sinner. He was still of himself "the holy and righteous one." 
In like manner, the imputation of Christ's righteousness does not 
make man holy and righteous personally. In each of these cases it- 
is only relation to the law which is expressed. 

IV. The relation of faith to justification. 

It is not every sinner that is justified. It is the believer in Jesus. 
An important inquiry, therefore, is as to the relation of faith to justi- 
fication. The Scriptures teach that faith is counted for righteousness. 
Rom. 4:5.9. 

By this is not meant, that faith is accepted in the place of right- 
eousness as the cause of justification, for, as we have seen, that place 
is occupied by the meritorious work of Christ. Nor is it meant? 
that the righteousness of God has so lowered the law, that some- 
thing less than obedience can be accepted by Him as a full satisfac- 
tion of that law ; because the demands of the law have not 



Abstract of Theology. 418 

been lowered but have been completely fulfilled by Christ. Besides 
this would be to make of faith a work, by which salvation is 
secured, and the Scriptures deny that it has this character. Rom. 
4:16. "We are never said to be justified dia pistin, (on account of 
faith), but only diapisteos through faith, or ekpisteos of faith, eis pistin 
unto faith, and epi te pistei by faith. The fact that faith is counted 
for righteousness shows, that in itself it is not righteousness and has no 
merit, but is only so "reckoned on the ground of something outside of 
itself, viz: the saving work of Christ." 

It is evidently so reckoned, because by faith the sinner appropriates 
to himself the work of Christ, and becomes vitally united with him. 
Faith may, therefore, be regarded as the condition upon which justifica- 
tion is bestowed upon those to whom Christ is presented as a Saviour, 
to be received and rested upon for salvation. "Faith," says Dr. Charles 
Hodge," is the condition of justification. That is, so far as adults are 
concerned, God does not impute the righteouness of Christ to the sin- 
ner, until and unless, he (through grace), receives and rests on Christ 
alone for salvation." Sys. Theol. Vol. 3, p. 118. It is a condition 
which has in it no merit in itself, but which only seizes upon merit in 
another. It is also an act of the sinner, to which he is graciously dis- 
posed and led by God Himself through the power of the Holy Spirit. 

V. The relation of works to justification. 

We have already seen that works cannot enter meritoriously into 
justification as its procuring cause. But the Scriptures evidently as- 
sociate works in some manner with justification. Paul himself says, 
that "love is the fulfilling of the law," Rom. 13:10, and declares that 
that which avails in Christ Jesus is "faith which worketh by love," and 
that "all the law is fulfilled in one word even in this, thou shalt love 
thy neighbor as thyself." Gal. 5:6.14. There is here an evident corres- 
pondence with, if not allusion to, the frequent teachings of our Lord, 
and especially to his answer to the Pharisee about the great command- 
ment of the law. Matt. 22:34-40. 

The teaching of the apostle James, is not therefore, to be held to be 
different from the other Scriptures, when he speaks of a justification 
by works. His language is very strong. He says, that "faith with- 
out works is dead". He asks, "was not Abraham justified by works, 
when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar." He inquires, 
"seest thou how faith wrought with his works and by works was faith 
made perfect," and especially declares, "ye see then how that by works 
a man is justified and not by faith only." James 2:20.21.22.24. 



419 Abstract of Theology. 

What then is the relation of works to justification ? 

1. Certainly not as a .procuring cause, or a meritorious ground. 
The faith with which James associates works, and upon a level with 
which he seems to place them, does not itself occupy this position. 

2. The works are not such as precede justification or are contem- 
poraneous with it, and hence cannot be a cause, nor even a condition 
such as we have seen faith to be. Even in the case of Abraham the 
justifying work referred to occurred long after the justification which 
he attained by faith. Compare Rom. 4:9-11 ; Heb. 11:8 ; Gen. 15:6 ; 
17:1-27 ; 22:1-19. 

3. The works are referred to as means of manifesting as well the 
faith as the justification claimed to be by faith. James 2:18. 

4. The apostle's object is to deny the living character of any faith, 
which has not wrought with works, and has not been perfected through 
works. 

It is thus evident, that works occupy the position of subsequent not 
antecedent accompaniments of justification. They manifest, that jus- 
tification has taken place, because they are invariable consequents. 
They do this however, not before man only, but God also and conse- 
quently He. as well as man perceives them, and because of them the 
believer performing these good works is justified before God. But 
such justification is not that actual justification which takes place in 
connection with faith, which is the judicial act of God declaring the 
relation of the believer to the law, but that declarative or manifesting 
justification, which cannot exist except as the result of the actual jus- 
tification, but which is so inseparably connected with the latter that 
by its presence, or absence, the existence or non-existence of justifica- 
tion is distinctly established. 

VI. The benefits included in justification. 

The benefits conferred by justification are many. 

1. Freedom from the condemnation of the law. This includes: 

(1) Forgiveness for all sin. Not for the past only, but through- 
out the Christian's life. . , 

(2) Discharge from his relation to the law as a rule of bondage, 
for which is now exchanged his service to it in the newness of the 
spirit. Rom. 7:6. 

(3) Peace with God-assured peace-because dependent on the 
merits of Christ and not those of himself. 

These and all other blessings which may be included under the gen- 
eral idea of pardon are necessary results of justification. 



Abstract of Theology. 420 

But justification confers righteousness as well as pardon. Not 
only are sins remitted but men are made partakers of the righteous- 
ness procured by Christ which is imputed to them. They are thus re- 
cognized before the law as righteous persons, not simply as persons 
pardoned for breaking the law, but as those who are rewarded for hav- 
ing fulfilled all its demands. 

But there are other blessings which arise from the relation to Christ 
of those whom God justifies. That relation was shown in the lecture on 
Faith (pp. 409-410). It is a vital and spiritual as well as a legal and 
federal union between Christ and his people. By virtue of this they 
are identified with him in his relation to God as their Representative 
and Covenant Head, and are made partakers of all the blessings 
which he has obtained as an inheritance. It is thus that they are 
adopted into the family of God and become His sons and daughters; 
thus are they sanctified by the Holy Spirit partly in this life, and pro- 
gressively advance until complete holiness shall be theirs in Heaven. 
Thus also do they persevere in the divine life, being preserved or 
kept by God through faith unto complete salvation. By the same act 
of faith which is the condition of justification is secured by those 
united to Christ, the privilege of complete participation in the re- 
wards of their federal head. They shall be heirs with him, shall 
reign with him, shall be partakers of his glory. No imagination can 
compass the reward which shall be theirs together with Christ. The 
Scriptures seem to teach that whatever Christ shall be or possess in 
his human nature they also shall be and possess. 

VII. The time of justification. 

We may finally inquire into the time at which justification occurs. 
It does not occur periodically but is a single act, and not one 
repeated with reference to new sins. This arises from its nature as 
an act of God declaring the relation of the believer to the law and 
from the ground of that act, the never failing merits of Chrisc. The 
pardon which the Christian seeks of God is that of a child for offences 
against a father's love, and not of a culprit before an avenging judge. 
The sufferings which Christians endure are not avenging punish- 
ments for sin, but chastisements from a Father who chastises those 
whom He loves and scourges those whom He receives. 

2. It is an instantaneous and not a continuing work as is sanctifi- 
cation. It is God's act declaring the sinner's relation to the law. 
That sinner is under condemnation until justified. As soon as justi- 



421 Abstract of Theology. 

lied his condemnation ceases. He cannot be partly condemned and 
partly justified. He is under condemnation until brought into that 
condition which secures his justification. When that moment comes 
God must justify. 

3. But when is that moment ? The Scriptures teach that it is when 
man believes. It is in the moment of trust in a personal Saviour. 

It was not at the time that Christ finished his work and laid the 
foundation of justification in his merits and satisfaction. By these 
justification was secured but not bestowed. It was not in Eternity as 
is Election by which the subjects of the future justification were 
chosen. It is at the moment of belief when faith, which is its con- 
dition, is experienced. Then is consummated that which was purposed 
in Eternity and which was made possible and certain by the work of 
Christ. The hour of faith was even the period of justification before 
the incarnation of Christ because of the faith which rested personally 
upon him through the promises of God, and the acceptance by God of 
the meritorious work of Christ as though already existing because of 
the absolute certainty that it would be performed. 



Abstract of Theology. 422 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE XXXVI. 

ADOPTION. 

Adoption is that privilege, bestowed upon those who are united 
with Christ, and justified by faith, by which they are admitted into 
the family of God, adopted as His children, and made joint heirs with 
His own Son. 

In the strict sense of the word "Son," this title can be given only to 
the Eternal Son of God, who is the only begotten of the Father, (John 
1:14), and is exclusively "the brightness of His glory, and the express- 
image of His person." (Heb. 1:3). 

But others are called participatively sons of God, as probably the 
angels, (Job 1:6 ; 38:7,) as Adam, (Luke 3:38,) and as Israel, (Ex. 
4:22 ; Hosea 11:1 ; cf. Rom. 9:4). The sonship of angels and of Adam, 
manifestly proceeds from their creation by God in His image, and 
likeness. That of Israel, however, is to be ascribed to the typical re- 
lation which that nation occupied to the true people of God. The 
application to Christ in Matt. 2:15, of the sonship declared of Israel 
in Ex. 4:22, and Hos. 11:1, together with the adoption to which Paul 
refers, Rom. 9:4, shows, that Israel's sonship, like Israel's election, was 
but a type, the fulfilment and reality of which were to be found only 
in the antitype. So far as Israel itself was concerned, the title could 
mean no more, than that that nation had been chosen by God to 
be outwardly His people, the depositories of His holy oracles, and the 
means through which His salvation would come to man. John 4:22. 

The sonship ascribed to the believer in Christ, will be best under- 
stood by considering its gracious origin, its peculiar nature, and the 



wondrous blessings which it confers. 



423 Abstract of Theology. 



I. Its gracious origin. 



1. It is not due to any natural relation, either originally possessed, 
or restored through justification. 

2. Nor does it arise from any new image or likeness of God, which 
has come through regeneration. 

3. It is the simple gift of God's love to those who by faith are 
brought into union with His proper Son. 

4. It is an act originating entirely in the good pleasure of God. 
Eph. 1:5. 

5. It is due, meritoriously, only to the work of Christ. It could 
be founded thus upon nothing else. 

6. It is conferred like justification upon all who. by faith receive 
Christ. John 1:12. 

7. It is bestowed at the beginning of the Christian career, when there 
could be no ground for supposing it due to the character or acts of 
the recipient. 

II. Its peculiar nature. 

If what has been said shows that the gift of sonship to the 
believer is a gracious act of God, that fact will appear more plain as 
we study the peculiar nature of that sonship. 

1. It is an act by which God chooses to take those who are not His 
children, and to make them such by adopting them into His family. 
Because of this they "are no more strangers and foreigners, b,ut fellow 
citizens with the saints and of the household of God." Eph. 2=19. 

2. As they are united in this sonship with His own Son, who, in 
his human nature, is "the beginning, the first born from the dead," 
(Col. 1:15), "the beginning of the creation of God," (Rev. 3:14). so 
does their sonship partake of the nature of his, not in its divine rela- 
tions, but in those by which he is also, even in that human nature, the 
Son of God. Luke 1:35. 

3. It is an everlasting sonship; because its continuance depends 
not upon what they do, and are ; but upon what he has done, and is. 

4. It is one in which Christ Jesus "is made unto them wisdom, 
and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption." 1 Cor. 1:30. 
Thus are all their deficiences removed, and exchanged for the glory of 
his abundant fulness. 

5. It is one in connection with which is fulfilled the prayer of 
Christ, "that they all may be one ; as Thou, Father, art in me, and I 



Abstract of Theology. 424 

in Thee, that they also may be one in us," ***** "that they 
may be one, even as we are one ; I in them, and Thou in me, that they 
may be made perfect in one." John 17:21.22.23. 

6. To such a perfection of sonship do they consequently attain, 
that not of, nor through, themselves', but solely through Christ Jesus, 
do they thus become "partakers of the divine nature," (2 Pet. 1:4), at- 
taining, as near as creatures may, to the position, and character of 
proper sonship to God. 

III. Its wondrous blessings. 

The blessings connected with this sonship are scarcely less wonder- 
ful than is its nature. 

1. Intimate fellowship with Christ and God. "Wherefore," says 
the apostle, "thou art no more a servant but a son." Gal. 4;7. 
"Henceforth," said Jesus, "I call you not servants ; * * * b u t I 
have called you friends." John 15-15. 

2. The guidance of the Holy Spirit; "as many as are led by the 
Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." Rom. 8:14. 

3. The witnessing presence of the Holy Spirit: "the Spirit itself 
beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God." 
Rom. 8:16. 

4. The conscious recognition in our hearts of God's relation to us 
as Father. "God has sent forth the spirit of His Son into your hearts, 
crying, Abba, Father." Gal. 4=6 ; also Rom. 8:15. 

5. "If children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with 
Christ." Rom. 8:17. 

6. Unknown glory in future likeness to Christ : "it doth not yet 
appear what we shall be : but we know that, when he shall appear, 
we shall be like him." 1 John 3:2. 

7. The inheritance includes all things ; "he that overcometh shall 
inherit all things and I will be his God, and he shall be my son." 
Rev. 21:7; cf. 1 Cor. 3=21-23. 

IV. It differs from justification. 

It has been contended that "adoption cannot be said to be a different 
act or grace from justification." [Dabney's Theology, p. 627.] "It 
appears to me," says Dr. Dick, [Lect. 73, Theol., vol. 2, p. 224,] "to 
be virtually the same with justification, and to differ from it merely 
in the new view which it gives of the relations of believers to God, 
and in the peculiar form in which it exhibits the blessings to which 



425 



Abstract of Theology. 






they are entitled." Turretine says also "that adoption is included in 
justification as a part which, with the remission of sins, constitutes 
this whole blessing; nor can justification be distinguished from 
adoption, unless so far as it is taken strictly for the remission of sins; 
whilst in its own formal conception it includes also acceptance unto 
life which flows from the imputation of the righteousness of Christ." 
Turretine's Theol., B. 16, c. 6, sec. 7. 

The position taken by these writers is a contrary extreme to that 
which some have held, viz: that justification consists only of pardon. 
It is not to be doubted that it is more than this, and includes restoration 
to the favour of God, and to eternal life. But these might have been 
bestowed without conferring upon the justified the peculiar blessings 
contained in Adoption. "Adoption," says Buchanan [on Justification, 
p. 262,] "is distinct in some respects from justification. For although 
both denote a change of relation, it may be affirmed that, according to 
the Scriptures, pardon, acceptance, and adoption, are distinct priv- 
ileges, the one rising above the other in the order in which they have 
been stated; — that if it be conceivable that a sinner might have been 
pardoned, without being accepted to eternal life, it is equally conceiv- 
able, that he might have been both pardoned and accepted, without 
being adopted as a son ; — and that, while the two first properly belong 
to his justification, as being both founded on the same relation, — that 
of a Ruler and Subject, — the third is radically distinct from them, as 
being founded on a nearer, more tender, and more endearing relation, — 
that between a Father and his Son. 

Dabney argues that there is no difference between the two because 
the "instrument is the same: faith, and because the meritorious ground 
of adoption is the same with that of justification, viz: the righteous- 
ness of Christ." 

But these facts, which are admitted, are due to another which is 
that the faith by which we are justified is one which secures to us 
union with Christ. It would not necessarily follow that this union 
confers upon' us only a single blessing or a number of blessings which 
may be combined together under one name. We can only learn this 
by examination. If, therefore, it shall appear that there are distinc- 
tions between the accompanying blessings, to the extent that these 
exist must those blessings be regarded as different? 

That there are distinctions appears to be plain from the following 
considerations: 



Abstract of Theology. 426 

1. The Scriptures speak separately of justification and adoption, 
and do not state that the latter is, in whole, or in part, the same as 
the former. 

. 2. Justification is ascribed to the righteous character of God as its 
formal ground. In it He is only gracious in accepting and providing 
a substitute. Adoption is expressly referred to the love of God. 
1 John 3:1. The fact that these cannot be interchanged, and justifica- 
tion referred to love, or adoption to justice, shows a decided distinction 
between them. 

3. While there is a change of relation in each of them, in justifi- 
cation it is a change of relation to the law, and only through that to 
the lawgiver and judge; in adoption it is a change of relation to the 
family of God and thus to God as the Father. 

4. While faith is that through which each is attained, in justifica- 
tion it is a condition precedent to a forensic act which we are assured 
that God will do because of justice as well as faithfulness (1 John 1 : 9) ; 
while in adoption it is merely receptive of Christ, securing that union 
through which the paternal love of God flows freely, on no other 
ground than faithfulness to his promises, 

5. The act of justification is never ascribed to the Son, and is seen 
to be plainly a prerogative of the Father as God ; but it is said of the 
Son that "as many as received him, to them gave he power to become 
the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name." John 1:12. 
In some sense, therefore, which is not true of justification, adoption is 
connected as a gift with the Son as well as the Father. 

The above distinctions are sufficient to show that there is a real 
basis of distinction between Justification and Adoption, and that the 
latter is not included in the former. They are separate effects 
which flow from the union with Christ attained through faith ; because 
of which we are made partakers of all benefits of his meritorious work^ 
Justification is one of these; and by it we obtain pardon, and favour 
with God, which is eternal life. Adoption is yet another which confers 
upon us the especial privilege of children and heirs of God. It is no 
more to be confounded with justification than is sanctification, which 
is also an effect of the same union with Christ, for, although its dis- 
tinctions are not so many, nor so broad,. yet to the extent that they 
exist, they are as real. 

"This closer and more endearing relation to God, which is constitu- 
ted by Adoption, is necessary, in addition to that which is included 



427 Abstract of Theology. 

in our Justification, to complete the view of our Christian privileges, 
and to enhance our enjoyment of them, by raising us above the spirit 
of bondage which is unto fear; and cherishing the spirit of adoption 
whereby we cry, Abba, Father. It is necessary, also, to explain how 
the sins of believers are not visited with penal inflictions, properly so 
called, but are nevertheless treated in the w T ay of fatherly chastise- 
ment; and, still further, to show that the kingdom of heaven hereafter 
will not be bestowed as wages for work done, but as an 'inheritance,' 
freely bestowed, on those, and those only, who are 'joint heirs with 
Christ.' Buchanan on Justification, pp. 263, 264. 



Abstract of Theology. 428 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE XXXVII. 



SANCTIFICATION. 

The correctness of the statements, as to the forensic nature of justi- 
fication, and its being an act of God which declares simply the relation 
of the justified to the law, will more plainly appear from what we 
shall learn of the nature of Sanctification, which is another of the 
privileges bestowed upon the people of God, as the result of their 
union with Christ. 

I. Meaning of the terms used. 

While justify, as has been seen, means simply to declare just, or to 
treat as just; sanctify means to make holy. The usage of Scripture 
is as clear in this case'-as in that. The word "holy" in Scripture has, 
however, various meanings. It is sometimes applied to things, and 
hot to persons only. (1.) It is used in the sense of that which is 
set apart or dedicated to any especial use. Thus, God threatens that 
instruments of vengeance will be "prepared'' (sanctified) against "the 
king's house of Judah." Jer. 23=7. But the dedication is most fre- 
quently for some holy use. Thus, "holy" is applied to the Sabbath day, 
(Ex. 31:14).; and to the house of God (Lev. 16:33) ; and to the water 
(Num. 5:17): and to the vessels of the young men (1 Sam. 21:5). 

(2.) Things are also called holy from their connection with holy per- 
sons. Thus, the "place" on which Moses stood was proclaimed "holy" on 
account of its connection with Jehovah (Ex. 3 : 5) ; likewise the 
Mount of Transfiguration (2 Pet. 1:18). (3.) As descriptive of an 
act free from sin, and performed with holy motives. Thus, the kiss 



429 Abstract of Theology. 

of Christian salutation, called in 1 Pet. 5=14 a kiss of charity, is in 
several other places called a '-holy kiss." 1 Cor. 16=20; 2 Cor. 13=12; 
1 Thess. 5:26. (4.) '"Holy," as tending to produce holiness; as the 
"Holy Scriptures" (2 Tim. 3:15); and "most holy faith" (Jude. 20). 
(5.) It is most generally used as descriptive of personal character, 
whether the holiness be perfect, as in God, or angels, or glorified 
saints, or partial, as seen in His people on earth. A few of the many 
instances of its application to this last class are 1 Sam. 2=9; Ps. 116:15; 
Acts 9=13; Pom. 15:25.26; Phil. 4=21 ; Eph. 1:1; Pev. 18=24. 

The doctrine of sanctification has reference to the first and last of 
these usages of "holy"; to the last more especially, as including the 
character of holiness produced by the continuous working of the Holy 
Ghost through the word of truth ; but also to the first, as involving 
that dedication of person and life to God which constitutes that "living 
sacrifice, holy acceptable unto God," which is the believer's "reasonable 
service." Rom. 12=1. Christian holiness includes both character and 
life. "Sanctification" is the process by which these are accomplished. 
The "sanctified" are those who are thus made holy. To "sanctify" is to 
make them thus holy. 

II. Who are sanctified. 

The sanctified are those, only, who are in Christ Jesus; who have 
been regenerated, and have been justified through faith. 

1. No man can cleanse or purify his heart or life. He lacks 
especially the will to do so. If he should determine to attempt it, 
the temptations, which will assail him, will soon overcome that will. 

2. The law cannot furnish controlling power to this result; not 
because of its own deficiences, but because of its weakness through 
the flesh. Pom. 8=3. 

3. The difficulty of the work to be done consists in its not being 
a mere reformation of a bad life and habits, which is measurably 
within the power of man, and is sometimes accomplished so far as 
the mere outward life among men demands; but in its including the 
destruction and removal of man's sinful condition, and habits, and 
action, which he by nature ardently loves, and the substitution for 
them of their very opposites in every respect. 

4. Regeneration, therefore, is necessary, as antecedent to the work 
of sanctification. A new nature must be attained which will love and 
seek after holiness, and struggle forward, dissatisfied until it shall be 
perfected. The Scriptures, therefore, represent sanctification' as oc- 



Abstract of Theology. 430 

curring only in those who have been regenerated, and to whom a new 
heart and a new spirit have been given. 

5. But, not only regeneration, but justification also, must precede 
sanctification. Yet certainly not for the same reasons; for regener- 
ation is, like sanctification, a change in nature, and character ; and 
justification a change only in relation to the law. There is, therefore, 
no such natural connection of sanctification with justification as there 
is with regeneration. Nor is there anything meritorious in the po- 
sition of the justified person. For the meritorious ground of all bles- 
sings can be found only in the person and w T ork of Christ. But, as 
the merit of Christ becomes that of the believer only in justification, 
and, as the faith by which we are united with him is also the condition 
of justification, so must justification precede the blessings which flow 
from that union, and from justification itself. The same necessity for 
precedence arises because in justification are furnished the motives by 
which the Christian is led through the Spirit. The Psalmist of old 
sang "there is forgiveness with thee, that Thou may est be feared," 
Ps. 1304, and the Apostle John declares u every man that hath this 
hope in him [of sonship and likeness to Christ] purifieth himself even 
as he is pure/' Paul also, teaches, that the condition of obedience with 
the newness of the spirit, is that we have been delivered from the law. 
Rom. 7:6. The believer must co-operate in the work of sanctification. 
His reception of the word of God, his reliance upon its promises, his 
struggles against sin, and his earnest longings for holiness are important 
elements in his sanctification. But the existence of these depends 
upon the belief that God has pardoned his sins, and will accept and 
bless him, which is the consequence of the personal trust in Christ 
which constitutes justifying faith. 

This precedence of justification to sanctification is distinctly set forth 
by the Apostle in the order in which the parts of salvation are 
arranged in Rom. 8:29.30, and Phil. 3=9-12. 

III. The nature of sanctifcation. 

What now, we may inquire, is the nature of the sanctification which 
is wrought out in the believer? 

1. It is a personal sanetification. It is accomplished in each indi- 
vidual personally, and not in that of a common representative as is 
the righteousness which justifies. 

2. It is a real sanctification, not merely one that is imputed, as is 
righteousness. Holiness is not merely "accounted to men," so that 



431 Abstract of Theology. 

they are treated as though holy, but they are made holy. Holiness 
becomes the characteristic of their natures. It is habitually exercised 
in their lives. It will eventually be possessed in perfection. It is real 
and in no sense only virtual. 

3. It is of the whole nature. The renewed' nature, given in regener- 
ation, shows that sanctification includes the whole spiritual part of 
man. It is not to be confined to mere outward actions. God's spirit- 
ual nature demands not only spiritual worship, but holy spiritual 
emotions and affections; and these belong to the heart. Hence the 
need of inward conformity to His will and commands is so especially 
set forth in the New Testament, as to mark its teachings as essen- 
tially spiritual. We are also plainly taught that between the out- 
ward fruit, and the inward condition, is such a connection that the 
latter is the actual producing power of the former, and is manifested 
by.it. Matt. 12:33-35 ; Luke 643-45. 

But sanctification is to be extended to the body likewise. Its 
appetites and passions are to be controlled, wicked actions are to cease, 
and unholy habits to be put away, the members of the body are to be 
mortified, all filthiness of the flesh to be cleansed, good works are to 
be exhibited to mankind, and such high moral duties to be performed 
as are imposed upon Christians as obligatory towards each other 
and the world. 

The Scriptures exhort to sanctification of the whole nature, both 
body and soul. See 2 Cor. 7=1 ; Eph. 4:17-24; Col. 3=5-10; 1 Thess. 
5:23 That of the body alone is urged. Rom. 6:12 13 ; 1 Thess. 4:3-7. 
The apostle tells the Ephesians about his prayers for their spiritual 
sanctification, Eph. 1=17-19. 

4. It is not a sanctification to be completed in this life. 

It is not, like justification, a single act, but is a continuous process. 
The work goes on throughout the lifetime. of the believer, nor is it 
completed before death. 

(1.) This is manifest from the frequent exhortations to sanctifica- 
tion addressed to those who are already believers in Christ, and who 
are actually called saints. Many of the passages containing these 
have been given in the preceding section. 

(2.) It is also shown by the warnings, about the danger of back- 
sliding, addressed to Christian believers. Such was that to Peter by 
our Lord, the reality of the danger of which was shown by his sub- 
sequent grievous fall. Luke 22:31.32. See examples of other such 
warnings in 1 Cor. 10:12: Col. 1:23: Heb. 3=12.13: 12:15. 



Abstract of Theology. 432 

(3.) The fearful condition -of actual apostasy is presented for the 
purpose of teaching the true people of God the extent to which 
knowledge of His grace may be possessed without the attainment of 
actual and final salvation. Heb. 64-6; 10:26-29; 2 Pet, 2=20. The 
object of this instruction is to warn against committing *sins, and in- 
dulging habits to which they are still prone. 

(4.) Christians are not presented in the New Testament as com- 
pletely pure and holy, but, on the contrary, the very best of them 
acknowledge the existence of sinful tendencies, and pronounce any 
idea of freedom from the presence of sin to be a delusion. The faults 
of good men, such as Peter, James and John, Thomas, and Paul and 
Barnabas (Luke 15:37-40) are especially mentioned, and John who 
declares that "whosoever is born of God sinneth not" (1 John 5:18) 
is the very apostle who, in a previous part of that very same epistle, 
teaches that "if we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and 
the truth is not in us." 1 John 1:8. Paul constantly speaks of himself 
as still struggling against the power of sin, as not counting himself to 
have attained* as keeping his body under subjection lest he should be 
a castaway, and thus he gives us, in his descriptions of his own ex- 
perience, a pattern of what has been almost universally acknowledged 
as that of every other Christian. 

5. But sanctification will not always be incomplete. In heaven 
perfect purity and holiness will be the portion of the believer. 

(1.) The purpose of God, in the predestination of those whom He 
foreknew, is that they shall "be conformed to the image of His Son." 
Rom. 8:29. This conformity shall be attained in heaven, for "when 
he shall appear we shall be like him ; for we shall see him as he is." 
1 John 3:2. Such likeness involves personal sinless purity. 

(2.) Paul's triumphant language as to the resurrection show T s that 
this will be true of the body no less than of the soul. 1 Cor. 15:50-57. 

(3.) The Scriptures declare that into the New Jerusalem "there 
shall no wise enter anything that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh 
abomination or maketh a lie; but they which are written in the 
Lamb's book of life." Rev. 21:27. Peter says that the inheritance 
reserved in heaven for the saints is incorruptible and undefiled. 
1 Pet. 1:4. 

6. The partial sanctification of this life is also progressive. It is 
not a certain degree of attainment, possessed by all alike, and remain- 
ing always in this life the same ; it is a growth from the seed planted 
in regeneration, which constantly is bringing forth new leaves, and 



433 Abstract of Theology. 

new fruit; it grows with increased intellectual knowledge of God's 
truth, with a clearer perception of human sinfulness and corruption, 
with stronger faith and' brighter hope, and more confident assurance 
of personal acceptance with God, with a more heartfelt conception of 
the sacrificing love of Christ, and with a more realizing belief in his con- 
stant presence and knowledge of what we do. It even increases from 
its own acquired strength and through the suffering and doing in 
which it is developed. In these and many other ways do Christians 
grow in grace and in the knowledge of Christ, and in conformity to 
his image "cleansing themselves from all filthiness of the flesh and 
spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." 2 Cor. 7:1. 

When, however, this sanctification is said to be progressive, it is not 
meant to deny the imperfections before referred to, nor to assert that 
there is a constant rise upward to God and toward His holy perfection. 
The Christian life on earth is a warfare with sin, and the believer is 
not always without failure. He often yields to temptation, sometimes 
falls even into most grievous sin. The personal experience, presented 
by Paul, in the seventh chapter of Romans, is so strong. a statement 
of such struggles that some have been inclined to confine its applica- 
tion to a time prior to acceptance of the gospel. But there can be no 
question of the applicability to Christians of the declaration made to 
the Galatians, "the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit 
against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other; so that 
ye cannot do the things that ye would." Gal. 5:17. 

But the progress of sanctification is nevertheless continuous. These 
temptations and struggles enter into that progress, and not only they, 
but even the sins and falls which mar the Christian life. The process 
of sanctification is like the ascent of a mountain. One is always 
going forward, though not always upward, yet the final end of the 
progressive movement of every kind is the attainment of the summit. 
Sometimes, because of difficulties, the road itself descend?, only more 
easily to ascend again. Sometimes certain attractions by the way 
cause a deviation from the route most suitable for ascent. Often it is 
feared that there has been no higher attainment, often that it has been 
but a continual descent, until, perchance, some point of view is gained 
from which to look down upon the plain whence the journey was 
begun and behold the height which has already been overcome. Often, 
with wearied feet, and desponding heart, the traveller is ready to 
despair, because of his own feebleness, and the difficulties which sur- 
round. But he earnestly presses forward and the journey is completed, 
the ascent is made, the end is attained.. 



Abstract of Theology. 43 i 

IV. The author of Sanctification. 

1. From what we have learned of the persons who are sanctified, 
and of the nature of the work performed, it is evident that the author 
of it must be more than man. The Scriptures teach that it is God. 

The work is attributed to God without reference to any distinction 
of persons. 1 Thess. 4:3; 5:23. It is also ascribed to the Father. 
John 17:17 ; Heb. 13:21 ; Jude. 1 ; and to Christ. Eph. 5:26 ; Tit. 2:14. 

But it is the especial work of the Holy Spirit, who is the author of 
the process of Sanctification, as he is also of the act of Regeneration. 
1 Cor. 6:11 ; 2 Cor. 3:18 ; 2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:2. 

(1.) He enlightens the mind. John 14:26; 1 Cor. 2:9-16; Eph. 
1=18; 3:18.19; 1 John 2:20.27. On this account He is called "the 
Spirit of truth," John 14=17; 15:26; 16=13; and the "Spirit of wis- 
dom." Eph. 1:17. 

(2.) He gives spiritual strength, (Eph. 3:16), lusting against the 
flesh, (Gal. 5:17), enabling the believer to mortify the deeds of the 
body, (Rom. 8:13), leading the sons of God, (Rom. 8:14), and en- 
abling them to purify their souls in obeying the truth. 1 Pet. 1:22. 

(3.) Inasmuch as He dwells within them, (Rom. 8:9), so that they 
are His temple (1 Cor. 3=16), with whom they are sealed as the earnest 
of their inheritance (Eph. 1:13.14), so, also, does He bear witness with 
their spirits that they are the children of God, and, removing the 
spirit of bondage to fear, bestows on them the spirit of adoption, 
whereby they cry Abba, Father. Rom. 8=15.16. 

(4.) The fruit of this indwelling Spirit is declared to.be "in all 
goodness and righteousness and truth." Eph. 5:9. It is specifically 
stated to be "love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 
meekness, temperance " Gal. 5=22. 

2. But, while there is such need of a divine author of sanctification, 
it is not a work in which the believer is passively a recipient, but one 
in which he actively co-operates. This is exhibited in various ways in 
the word of God. 

(1.) The Christian is called upon to recognize this presence of the 
Spirit. 1 Cor. 3=16.17. They are exhorted to "walk in the Spirit," 
and assured that, in so doing, they "shall not fulfil the lust of the 
flesh." Gal. 5:16. They are taught that '-they that are after the flesh 
do mind the things of the flesh ; but they that are alter the Spirit the' 
things of the Spirit." Rom. 8:5. They are told that, because of the 
indwelling Spirit, "we are debtors, not to the flesh to live after the 
flesh," and thus, by implication, that we are debtors to live after the 



435 Abstract of Theology. 

Spirit. Rom. 8:12. They are charged to "grieve not the Holy Spirit of 
God, whereby they are sealed unto the day of redemption." Eph. 4:30. 
In these, and in other ways, their co-operation with the Spirit in the 
work is implied quite plainly. 

(2.) They are exhorted to engage in the work of self purification. 
The apostle exhorts the Ephesians not to '-walk as other Gentiles walk, 
in the vanity of their mind, * * * to put oft' * * * the old 
man which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and to be re- 
newed in the spirit of their mind, * * * and to put on the new man 
which, after God, is created in righteousness and true holiness." 
Eph. 4:17-24. 

(3.) This sell purification is declared to be the work of every one 
that has the hope of likeness to Christ. 1 John 3:3. 

(4.) Direct commands, and exhortations to perfection and holiness, 
imply co-operative action in those who are in process of attaining 
sanctification. Matt. 5:48; 2 Cor. 7=1. 

(5.) All warnings against the power of temptation, the lust of the 
flesh, the subtlety of Satan, the influence of the world, the grievous 
character of sin; all exhortations to lead a virtuous and godly life, to 
set the affections on heavenly and divine things, to consecrate soul 
and body to God ; all motives to these ends drawn from the work of 
Christ, as an exhibition of divine love and mercy, as an example of 
purity of life, and of patient suffering, or as personally connected with 
the believer because of his union with the Lord, — in short, all that the 
Scriptures contain fitted to lead the Christian to a higher spiritual 
life, is evidence of his co-operation with the Holy Spirit in the work 
of sanctification. 

The author of sanctification is indeed the Divine Spirit, but the 
Christian actively unites with that Spirit, "working out his own sal- 
vation with fear and trembling," being exhorted and encouraged to do 
so, because "it is God which worketh in him, both to will, and to do, of 
His good pleasure." Phil. 2:12.13. 

V. The means of Sanctification. 

The manner in which the Spirit operates in sanctification is be- 
yond our knowledge. In none of the acts of God can we tell how He 
exerts His power, not even in creation. "As thou knowest not," says 
the preacher, "what is the way of the Spirit, nor how the bones do 
grow in the womb of her that is with child ; even so thou knowest not 
the works of God who maketh all." Ecc. 11:5. In sanctification the 



Abstract of Theology. 436 

Spirit moves as mysteriously as we are taught that He does in regen- 
eration. John 3=8. In general, undoubtedly, it is in accordance with 
the laws of mind, and of spiritual life. Yet we know no reason why 
there is not a place for miraculous action in sanctification, as well as in 
regeneration. We can only know the effects produced, and the means 
which are revealed in the word of God, and in Christian experience. 

1. The primary means which the Spirit uses for our sanctification, 
as both of these sources of information teach, is the truth of God. 
"Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth, (John 17:17), 
was the prayer of the Lord, in which the whole work, both of conse- 
cration and cleansing, is set forth as thus to be accomplished. (See 
also John 17:19). "Growth in grace" is inseparably connected with 
growth 'in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." 
2 Pet. 318. 

This is farther taught in Scripture by 

(1.) Such passages as connect spiritual life with truth; as John 
6:63; 8:32. 

(2.) Such as ascribe quickening power to the word of God; as 
Ps. 119=50.93. 

(3.) Such as teach that truth is promotive of obedience ; as Ps. 
119--34.43.44. 

(4.) Such as declare its usefulness in preventing sin ; as Ps. 119:11. 

(5.) Such as associate it with cleansing from sin; as Ps. 119:9; 
1 Pet. 1:22. 

(6.) Such as state that it produces hatred of sin ; as Ps. 119:104. 

(7.) Such as assert its power to lead to salvation ; as 2 Tim. 3:15- 17. 

(8.) Such as say that "all things that pertain unto life and god- 
liness" have been given through the knowledge of God, and Christ; 
as 2 Pet, 1:2.3. 

(9.) Such as imply that growth in grace is due to greater knowledge ; 
as Heb. 5:12-14. 

(10.) Such as account for inability to accept higher doctrinal truth, 
by such weakness as should be characteristic only of those who are 
babes in Christ; as 1 Cor. 3=1-3. 

(11.) Such as set forth the word of God as "the sword of the 
Spirit"; as Eph. 6:17. 

(12.) Such as announce that all the ministerial gifts bestowed by 
Christ are "for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the min- 
istry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come in the 



437 Abstract of Theology. 

unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a 
perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." 
Eph. 4:11-16. 

2. In connection with this primary means of divine truth others 
are presented. But they are not only secondary, but actually sub- 
ordinate means to the word of God. They rather furnish occasions 
for the exercise of the means of sauctification contained in the truth 
of God than are proper means in themselves to that end. In themselves 
they have no efficacy, and only accomplish the end of sanctification 
by bringing the believer into connection with the truth of God. 

(1.) Such are the providences of God, which tend in various ways 
to arouse and move His children, and avail unto sanctification so far 
only as they recall, and lead to the apprehension of divine instruc- 
tion. They are frequent, and effective means of such apprehension, 
and, through this, of the believers growth in holiness. Such especially 
are the afflictions, sent as chastisements by the Heavenly Father upon 
His children. Such, also, are the temptations, and trials to which 
they are subjected. Such, likewise, are the infirmities of the flesh, 
and perplexities of the spirit which God permits to remain, or causes 
to arise in his own elect. In these, and in numerous other ways, as 
well of what is called good, as of what is called evil, does God sur- 
round His people with the acts of His providence. But these acts 
themselves avail not unto their sauctification but are only made effect- 
ive through the truth of God apprehended amid such events, and re- 
ceived as spiritual food for the growth of the believer. 

(2.) The good works of the Christian, furnish another secondary 
means for his sanctification. By these are not meant works that are 
good in a legal sense, for such goodness would require a perfection 
and freedom from taint which no work of fallen man can possess: 
but it is the privilege of the Christian to live unto the Lord, and the 
name of good works is given in Scripture to such outward actions as 
are the results of his life through the Spirit. 

These good works are the result of sanctification ; but, in their per- 
formance, they naturally become the means of further sanctification. 
John 14:23 ; Eph. 3:16-20. Yet, is this accomplished, not apart from, 
but in connection with, the truth of God. The new developement will 
always be in the direction of the particular truths, contemplated in 
their performance. These will furnish the motives to further action, 
the strength for additional duty, the earnest purpose of deeper conse- 
cration, or, whatever else the Spirit may graciously use for a more 
complete sanctification of the believer. 



Abstract of Theology. 438 

(3.) Prayer is a still further means to the same end ; which, from 
its nature, can be effective only through the believer's apprehension 
of divine truth. 

Hence the worthlessness of mere lip service (Isa. 29:13; Ezek. 33=31; 
Matt. 15:8), or vain repetitions (Matt. 6:7). Not only are they offensive 
to God, but without value to the soul. Hence also the necessary 
spirituality of divine worship, because that is only true worship, 
which is the service of the soul. John 4:23 24. Prayer, which is a 
mere formal or mechanical utterance of words, can have no value; be- 
cause the one that offers it, does so in ignorance, or forge tfuln ess of the 
truth of God appropriate to accompany it. 

(4.) The Lord's day is another secondary means of sanctification, 
which manifestly becomes such only in the Christian's use of divine truth ; 
either such as is suggested by God's appointment of such a day, or 
such as is attained through the opportunity for such purpose which it 
affords. 

(5) The association of believers in church relations, is another of 
the means ordained by God for the increase of individual spiritual 
life and consequently of sanctification. This is attained not only 
through social prayer, and the preaching of the word, but also by Christian 
watchcare and discipline, and by the mutual sympathy and aid of be- 
lievers in matters both temporal and spiritual. Whatever in these 
pertains to sanctification, must be connected with the recognition of 
divine truth in the moving influences which bestow, or the accepting 
thankfulness which receives. 

(6.) The ministry given by Christ, is also a means for the sanctifi- 
cation of his people, in the preaching of his truth, in the spiritual 
guidance and rule of the flock, and in the sympathizing bestowment 
of the consolations of his grace. But, even these, though officially ap- 
pointed, cannot either of themseves, or by virtue of their office, con- 
fer or increase spiritual grace. Their ministry is one only of the word 
of God, and it is only through his inspired truth "that the man of 
God is throughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Tim. 3=16. What 
these works are, is shown by verse 15, viz; "doctrine, reproof, correc- 
tion, instruction in righteousnes." Ministers are in no other sense 
vehicles of grace. They are not appointed as personal channels of 
access to God, or of the bestowment of blessings by Him, except so far 
as He has made it their duty to make known His truth. In connec- 
tion with that truth they are means of sanctification to His people, 



439 Abstract of Theology. 

and only thus are to be regarded as occupying relations between their 
fellow men and God. 

(7.) The ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Sapper are also means 
of sanctification. It is especially important to understand in what 
respects they are so. Upon this subject there are several opinions. 

By the Papal Church these, with five others, are regarded as the 
Sacraments of the New Law. As to their efficacy as means of grace 

1. This Church maintains that the Sacraments are, in and of 
themselves, — wherever conferred with the intention of the church, and 
where the recipient does not put obstacles in the way, — active causes 
to produce the grace which they signify, by virtue of the sacramental 
action itself, instituted by God for this end. The sufferings of Christ 
concur as the meritorious, but not as the efficient cause, which also 
depends neither upon the merit of the agent, nor upon that of the 
receiver. 

They make distinctions, however, as to the necessity of these two 
Sacraments, regarding baptism as absolutely necessary to justification, 
in which they include sanctification ; but the Lord's Supper as only 
necessary because commanded and eminently useful. 

The efficacy which is thus ascribed to the Sacraments is that of what 
is called an opus operatum, in which grace is conferred ex opere operato , 
viz : from the mere act done. It denies that faith alone in the divine 
promise suffices to obtain the grace. Will, faith, and repentance, in 
the adult, are necessarily required as dispositions on the part of the 
subject, but only to remove obstacles, for, as fire burns wood, not 
because the wood is dry, nor because fire is applied to it, but because 
of the power in fire to consume, so, they maintain that a sacrament, 
by its own inherent power, confers the grace when no obstacle prevents' 
such as would be dampness in wood to the power of fire to burn. 

[See statements and extracts from the Canons of the Council of 
Trent, and from Bellarmine, contained in Hodge's Outlines, pp. 
597-600]. 

The objections to this explanation of the use of the Sacrament as 
means are, 

(a.) That the ordinance is thus regarded as effective in itself, dis- 
connected from any divine truth which may be symbolized in it, or 
taught in its objective presentation, or suggested through the Christian 
experience which accompanies its reception. The Scriptures no where 
teach such efficacy apart from the truth of God. 



Abstract of Theology. 440 

(b.) To no immediate connection of God with these, is ascribed 
their effective power. They are held to be mere appointments of God 
to be applied through man, and grace is taught to be as inherent in 
them as is, in any merely physical substance, any natural quality which 
God has bestowed upon it. 

(c.) The faith which is declared requisite to remove obstacles is 
"mere assent" to receive, and not the appropriating faith of personal 
trust in Christ which alone is the saving faith of the Bible. Hodge's 
Sys. Theol., vol. 3, p. 512. 

(d.) This doctrine of the Sacraments places the salvation of every 
one entirely in the power of others. Whatever his own faith, unless 
some one else will baptise him, he cannot attain justification and 
fcanctification. 

(e.) Inasmuch as the Sacraments are valid to convey grace only 
when performed with "the intention of doing what the Church does," 
no one can know that the grace has been conferred, since he cannot 
know the mind of the administrator. 

2. A second opinion, different in many respects as to the efficacy 
of the Sacraments, has been held by almost all Protestants. 

(1.) In opposition to the doctrine of Rome they teach that the 
Sacraments, which are but two, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, are 
not in themselves means of grace, and have no separate inherent 
power to convey it. 

(2.) They say, however, that these are "real means of grace," that 
"they are not, as Romanists teach, the exclusive channels; but they 
are channels." Hodge's Sys. Theol., vol. 3, p. 499. 

(3.) They also assert that they are "sacred signs and seals of the 
covenant of grace." Westminster Confess., ch. 27, sec. 1. 

(4.) They hold that the efficacy of the Sacraments depends "upon 
the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains 
together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of ben- 
efit to worthy receivers." West. Conf., ch. 27, sec. III. 

This position is preferable to that of the Romanists inasmuch as: 

1. It recognizes the necessary presence of the Spirit in connection 
with the grace bestowed, and thus denies that this proceeds exclusively 
from any natural inherent power. 

2. The benefits are said to be conferred only upon those "who worthily 
receive the Sacraments." By this is possibly meant persons receiving 
them through the exercise of true faith in Christ. Such is generally the 



441 Abstract of Theology. 

position assumed by the various theologians of these churches as to 
the adult recipients of these Sacraments. But it should have been 
more clearly stated in their creeds. The language used could only 
mean this in adult receivers. Yet it is almost certain that the in- 
tention was to include infants among those who "worthily receive.'' 
He, however who "worthily receives" through faith must be capable 
of personal faith. If the receiver is not himself a believer, he does 
not receive "through faith." He may receive because of the faith 
of another," but it is through ihe personal exercise of faith, and not 
on account of its exercise by others, that the Scriptures teach that 
the Christian is blessed in connection with the ordinances. 

The objections to this form of the doctrine are; 

1. The continued use of the word sacrament. It has no Scriptural 
authority. It has led many to attach a superstitious sacredness to 
these ordinances. 

2. The use of the word "seal" is also objectionable. A seal is a 
visible stamp, or impression which is made upon a paper or some 
other substance for the purpose of certifying to the truth of some 
fact thus implied. It may either be attached personally by the one 
whom it represents, or by some person authorized by him; but its 
presence by his authority is his testimony to the genuineness or cor- 
rectness of what is witnessed. 

Now neither of the ordinances makes a visible mark upon their 
recipients. They are thus without an important characteristic of the 
seal. Neither of them is affixed to a designated individual by divine 
authority. The authority to administer is only a general one. No 
man can put marks upon the elect of God which shall authoritatively 
certify that they are His. Neither Baptism, nor the Lord's Supper, 
becomes such an authentication either to the recipient, or to others. 
This is found only in the conscious possession of true faith, or in the 
manifestation of that faith by the good works of his life. 

This common usage of the word "seal" in connection with the 
ordinances has no other Scriptural support than the reference *to 
Abraham in Gen. 4=11. "He received the sign of circumcision, a seal 
of the righteousness of the faith, which he had, being uncircum- 
cized." But the rite then performed had the characteristics of a seal 
which have been denied of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. It was a 
visible mark, and not only so, but it was applied to the individual 
man Abraham by direct divine authority. 






Abstract of Theology. 442 

3. Objection may also be made to the word "sign" in the sense in 
which it is used. These two ordinances are indeed "signs", but signs 
of what Christ did and suffered, and not of what is done to his people. 
Yet it is in the latter sense that the word "sign" is exclusively used by 
those holding this opinion. 

4. The use of these two words has led to the mistake about the 
manner in which these two ordinances are means of grace, which con- 
stitutes the fatal error of this opinion. They are means of grace as 
they set forth truth, as they teach something, and only in this way do 
they convey grace. In the act of receiving, that grace may be con- 
ferred either from the consciousness of an act of obedience, or through 
the apprehension and comprehension of the trutvh symbolized. It can . 
come in no other way. The strongest expression in Scripture in favour 
of the grace conveying power of an ordinance, that in 1 Pet. 3:21 
in- which the apostle speaks of "water: which also after a true likeness 
(in the antitype) doth now save you, even baptism," is at once ex- 
plained by him to be not the ordinance, but the spiritual condition in 
which it is received viz : "not the putting away of the filth of the 
flesh but the interrogation (inquiry, appeal) of a good conscience to- 
ward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." [Canterbury 
Revision]. 

Serious has been the error which has resulted from these expressions 
and the doctrine taught in connection with them. It has led 
men actually to teach that the grace of God has been really con- 
ferred upon or pledged to a recipient by the agency of the adminis- 
trator. In the Anglican Catechism the question is put to the child : 
"Who gave you this name ?" to which it is taught to reply "My God- 
father, and Godmother, in my baptism, wherein I was made a member 
of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of hea- 
ven." Here the ordinance 'performed upon an unconscious subject is 
taught to have produced regenerating power. This doctrine of bap- 
tismal regeneration has been commonly regarded as unscriptural and 
false by Evangelical Christians. But is the effect declared of this 
baptismal act any more a matter of the mere human choice, and will 
and action of some other than the recipient, than is the result ascribed 
by an eminent Presbyterian Theologian to the baptism of the child of 
a believer? He says, "And so when a believer adopts the covenant 
of grace, he brings his children within that covenant, in the sense 
that God promises to give them, in His own good time, all the bene- 
fits of redemption, provided they do not willingly renounce their bap- 
tismal engagements." Hodge's Sys. Theology, vol. 3, p. 555. 



443 



Abstract of Theology. 



3. The true statement of the sanctifying power of these ordinances 
seems the rather to be, 

1. A denial of all inherent power in them as means of grace. 

2. Recognition of them as conveying truth by symbolical instruc- 
tion. 

3. The fact that they are partaken of, because of the command of 
Christ, also makes the act of obedience to him a means of grace to the 
recipient. 

4. Only as truth is, in some way or other, brought to the accept- 
ance of the heart and mind, can they have sanctifying power. 

It is thus seen, that all the means of sanctification are connected 
with the truth, and are secondary to it. They only become such, as 
they convey truth, or as they suggest truth, or as they are employed in 
the recognition of some truth. 



Abstract of Theology. 444 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE XXXVIII. 



Final Perseverance of the Saints. 

The doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints teaches, that 
those who are effectually called of God to the exercise of genuine faith 
in Christ, will certainly persevere unto final salvation. This is not 
taught of a class of mankind in general, as something that will 
usually be true of the persons composing that class, but of each indi- 
vidual in it; so that not one will finally apostatize, or be lost; but 
each will assuredly persevere and be saved. 

This fact is taught explicitly in the word of God, which sets it forth 
as due to the purpose, and power of God, and the grace which He 
bestows, and not to any excellence, or power in the believer. Indeed, 
such is stated to be the weakness of man, that, if left to himself, he 
would assuredly fall ; against the danger of which he is constantly 
warned ; a danger to which, even the best instructed and most sancti- 
fied are liable, and which is evidenced by the sins which are commit- 
ted, which are often of a most heinous character, sometimes extending 
to actual denial of the faith, and backsliding from God; and showing 
that, but for God's mercy and grace, final apostasy would occur. But, 
from the danger thus due to himself, he is rescued by the power, and. 
grace of God, Who by His watchful preservation, keeps guard over 
His unworthy children, preventing their total estrangement from 
Him, and bringing them finally unto the salvation He has designed 
for them. In so doing, however, He does not act independently of 
their cooperation ; but leads them unto salvation through their own 
perseverance in faith, and holiness. 



445 Abstract of Theology. 

1. The Scriptures tea^h the final salvation of all believers. 

(1.) The Psalmist sang, "though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast 
down, for the Lord upholdeth him with His hand. * *' * * 
The Lord loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints : they are 
preserved forever." Ps. 37:24.28. The wise man said : "The path of 
the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the 
perfect day." Prov. 4:18. Isaiah, referring to the true Israel of God, 
said "Fear not : for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy 
name ; thou art mine. When thou passest through the waters, I will 
be with thee : and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee ; 
when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burued ; 
neither shall the flame kindle upon thee. For I am the Lord thy 
God, the Holy one of Israel, thy Saviour. * * * * Even every 
one that is called by my name ; for I have created him for my glory, 
I have formed him ; yea I have made him." Isa. 43:1.2.7. "Israel 
shall be saved in the Jjord with an everlasting salvation ; ye shall not 
be ashamed nor confounded world without end." Isa. 45:17. "The 
heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old 
like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner ; 
but my salvation shall be forever, and my righteousness shall not be 
abolished. - ' Isa. 51:6. "Incline your ear, and come unto me : hear, 
and your soul shall live ; and I will make an everlasting covenant 
with you, even the sure mercies of David." Isa. 55:3. "I will make 
an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from 
them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that 
they shall not depart from me." Jer. 32:40. 

Christ himself, referring to the "false Christs and false prophets," 
who shall arise professedly in his name, teaches the impossibility of 
deceiving the elect of God by saying "if it were possible they shall 
deceive the very elect." Matt. 24;24. He likewise declared "He 
that heareth my word, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath ever- 
lasting life, and shall not come into condemnation ; but is passed from 
death unto life." John 5:24. To the Samaritan woman he said: 
"whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him, shall never 
thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of 
water springing up into everlasting life." John 4:14. He also 
affirmed even more expressly the final salvation of each of his people 
by declaring "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they 
follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never 
perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. My Father 






Abstract of Theology. 446 

which hath given them unto me, is greater than all ; and no one is 
able to snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are 
one." John 10:27-29. [Canterbury Revision.] 

The apostle Paul presents the effectual calling of those whom God 
had predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, as con- 
nected absolutely with their being glorified by Him. Rom. 8.30. In 
the same chapter, vv. 35-39, he declares their separation from the love 
of Christ impossible. Writing to the Corinthians, he assures them 
that Christ will "confirm'" them u unto the end," so that they shall be 
"unreprovable in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ," adding "God is 
faithful, through whom ye were called unto the fellowship of His Son 
Jesus Christ our Lord." 1 Cor. 1:8 9. To the Philippians he also 
declares himself "confident of this very thing that he which hath 
begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus 
Christ." Phil. 1=6. In like manner he says to the Thessalonians 
"The Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you and keep you from evil." 
2 Thess. 3=3. Peter also writes to "the strangers scattered abroad" as 
unto persons "who had been begotten unto a lively hope by the resur- 
rection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible, 
and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, 
who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready 
to be revealed in the last time." 1 Pet. L3-5. 

(2.) This doctrine is inseparably associated with the other doctrines 
of grace which we have found taught in that word. So true is this, 
that they are universally accepted, or rejected together. The perse- 
verance of the saints is a part of every Calvinistic confession. It is 
rejected by Romanists, Lutherans, and Arminians. All the evidence, 
therefore, of the truth of the doctrines already examined, may be 
presented in favour of this which is a necessary inference from them. 
In like manner, all the independent proof of this doctrine confirms 
the separate doctrines, and the system of doctrine, with which it is 
associated. 

2. The Scriptures declare that the sure salvation of each believer 
is due to the purpose of God. This would be naturally inferred from 
some of the doctrines to which reference has just been made. But it 
is distinctly asserted. Those who believed are said to have been 
"ordained to eternal life." Acts 13=48. Those finally glorified are 
said to have been predestinated to be conformed to the image of His 
Son, and, therefore, called. Rom. 8=30. Referring to the falling 
away of some, the apostle writes to Timothy declaring that neverthe- 



447 Abstract of Theology. 

less the "firm foundation [Canterbury Revision] of God standeth, 
having this seal, "The Lord knoweththem that are His"' (2 Tim. 2:17) 
thus establishing the identity of those that are thus known with those 
who shall remain steadfast. Our Lord himself declared this final sal- 
vation to be the will of God, "This is the Father's will which hath 
sent me, that of all which He hath given me I should lose nothing 
but should raise it up again at the last day." John 6=39. 

3. The final salvation of the believer is ascribed to the power of 
God. 

It is the power of Christ, and of God, which makes it impossible 
that the sheep shall be snatched from their hands. John 10=27-29. 
It is God that will perform the good work which He had begun. 
Phil. 1:6. "It is God that worketh in you" says the Apostle to the 
Philippians, "both to will and to do of His good pleasure." Phil 2:13. 
Peter addresses his readers as those "who are kept by the power of 
God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last 
time." 1 Pet. 1:5. He likewise invokes that "grace aud peace be 
multiplied" to those who "have obtained like precious faith," * * * 
"according as His divine power hath given us all things that pertain 
unto life and godliness." 2 Pet. 1:1-3. The Apostle Paul declares 
that it is God that is to be thanked because of the growth of faith. 
2 Thess. 1:3. In the same chapter he says, "we pray always for 
you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil 
all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with 
power." 2 Thess. Lll. It was in reliance upon this power, that 
Paul triumphantly wrote to Timothy "I know whom I have believed 
and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have com- 
mitted unto him against that day." 2 Tim. 1:12. 

4. The final salvation is also ascribed to the grace of God. Not 
only is the power of God exercised ; but it is graciously exercised. 
His aid is a gift of unmerited favour. The apostle to the Romans 
asserts that salvation must needs be of faith, that it might be of 
grace "to the end that the promise might be sure to all of the seed." 
Rom. 4:16. It is only "as many as are led by the Spirit of God" that 

'are the sons of God." Rom. 8:14. "It is not of him that willeth, 
nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." Rom. 9:16. 
This gracious character, which is ascribed to the whole work of salva- 
tion, is not less true of it in the end, than in the beginning. Hence, 
when the Apostle prays for his brethren at Thessalonica, that their 
"whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the 



Abstract of Theology. 448 

coming of our Lord Jesus Christ," he immediately adds "faithful is 
he that calleth you who also will do it." 2 Thess. 5:23.24. That 
faithfulness consists in the fulfilment of gracious promises, and not of 
matters of obligation and duty. 

5. That the perseverance of believers depends solely upon the 
purpose and power and grace of God, will still further appear from the 
natural weakness of the Christian and his liability to fall. Even an 
innocent and pure human being must be fallible, because he is a mere 
creature, and may therefore choose evil instead of good. We have a 
sad illustration of this in the fall of our first parents. It may be 
doubted whether the confirmation of holy angels, or saints, is due to 
anything in themselves, or in their condition, or state. It is most 
probable that their only ground of confidence is in the purpose and pro- 
mise of God. But the Christian is not free from sin. He does not in 
this life attain perfect sanctification. Hence the constant tendencies to 
sin, the liability to temptation from within, and from without, and 
the utter dependence upon the grace of God for his progress in the di- 
vine life. These have been pointed out in the discussion about his 
sanctification. The Scripture teaches the fact expressly in such pas- 
sages as 1 John 1=8-10; and 2=1. It is also to be inferred from the 
frequent warnings against the power of temptation, and the necessity 
of resisting it from whatever source it may arise. We are taught not 
only the liability to sin from our own corrupted natures, and from 
the influences of the world around ; but also that we have- a spiritual 
enemy to contend with in Satan who zealously, and with much craft 
and subtilty, seeks the destruction of the children of God. 

Nor does the Bible alone give warnings of what may possibly happen 
but the religious experience of the Christian also which is one of constant 
struggles against the evil of sin. These struggles the word of God 
teaches not only to be consistent with a state of gracious acceptance 
with God, but to be an evidence of such a state ; inasmuch as they 
show that the believer is no longer "dead in trespasses, and sins," but is 
engaged in a conflict to destroy, and escape them. In this warfare 
the strange condition is presented of divine strength perfected in 
human weakness. While the Scriptures command watchfulness and 
prayer against temptations, (Mark 14=38) and enforce the command 
by the fearful conflict of our Lord in Gethsemane, they also encourage 
believers by the assurance that "God is faithful, who will not suffer 
you to be tempted above that ye are able but will, with. the tempta- 
tion, also, make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." 



449 Abstract of Theology. 

1 Cor. 1:13. '"Therefore" said the apostle, "I take pleasure in infirmi- 
ties, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for 
Christ's sake : for when I am weak then am I strong." 2 Cor. 12:10. 
He gives the reason why he thus rejoices in the preceding verse, viz: 
"he said unto me, my grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is 
made perfect in weakness." 

6. The weakness thus taught of the Christian is not confined to 
those w T ho have just begun their career of faith, or who are babes in 
Christ, but is found also in the best instructed, and most sanctified, to 
such an extent as to make necessary their continued watchfulness and 
prayer. It was to those to whom the Apostle wrote, "in every 
thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance and in all knowledge 
* * so that you come behind in no gift," 1 Cor. 1:4-7 that he 
found it necessary to say "let him that think eth he standeth, take 
heed lest he fall," 1 Cor. 10=12. They also whose "faith" was 
"spoken of throughout all the world," Rom. 1:8, needed the warning 
"well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest 
by faith. Be not high minded but fear : for if God spared not the 
natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee." Rom. 
11=20.21. They were our Lord's chosen companions whom he taught 
to pray, "Bring us not into temptation but deliver us from tha evil 
one." Matt. 6 : 13. [Canterbury Revision.] These also were the 
ones to whom primarily the warning of Christ was given with the 
accompanying scene at Gethsemane. Even Paul at the very moment 
in which he declared, "I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so 
fight I, not as one that beateth the air," added "but I keep under my 
body, and bring it into subjection : lest that by any means, when I have 
preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." 1 Cor. 9:26.27. 

7. Nor are examples wanting, not merely of faults and errors 
committed by Christian men, but of grievous sins; and these in 
men of the highest religious privileges and attainments. Such was 
the desertion of Christ by all the apostles, when he was betrayed 
into the hands of his enemies, Mark 14:50, the thrice denial 
of his Lord by Peter, Mark 14:66-72, the contention between Paul 
and Barnabas, Acts 15=39, and the blameworthy conduct of Peter 
and of the other Jews who dissembled with him, and of Barnabas at 
Antioch. Gal. 2.-11—13. All of these are instances of grievous falls 
in those who were true believers in Jesus. They can also be paralleled 
in the lives of God's true servants in the Old Testament times, in the 
sin of Abraham, Gen. 20:5-13; of Moses, Num. 20=7-13; of Eli, 



Abstract of Theology. 450 

1 Sam. 2:22-36; of David, 2 Sam. 12:1-14; and of Hezekiah, 2 Kings 
20:12-21 . 

The extent to which this weakness of man is seen to exhibit itself 
is evidence not only of what, but for the intervention of God, might 
occur in each case, but, also, that so far as man is concerned, the final 
apostasy of each one is not only possible but probable, nay certain. 
We thus have additional proof that the final salvation is due to the 
purpose, power, and grace of God. 

8. This salvation is, however, secured only through the co-oper- 
ation of the believer. It is not one bestowed upon him in his sins; 
but through deliverance from his sins. It is not merely preservation 
by God, but also perseverance of the believer, in faith, and holiness, 
unto the end. It is the good work begun in the Christian which is 
performed until the day of Jesus Christ. Phil. 1=6. The confirma- 
tion to the end secures that they shall be "unreprovable in the day of 
our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Cor. 1:8. The predestination is unto con- 
formity to the image of His Son. Rom. 8:30. This is secured by 
various means : 

(a.) Faith is one of these. 

Christians are <l kept by the power of God through faith unto sal- 
vation." 1 Pet. 1:5. "Whatsoever is born of God overcometh the 
world : and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our 
faith." 1 John 5:4. "As many as received him, to them gave he 
power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his 
name." John 1:12. "These are written that ye might believe that 
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ; and that believing ye might have 
life through his name." John 20:31. 

(b.) It is also accomplished by consecration to God. 

This is earnestly enjoined upon the people of God because of the 
great privileges bestowed upon them. Paul besought the Romans by 
the mercies of God to present their bodies a living sacrifice unto God. 
Rom. 12:1. He urged the Ephesians to be followers of God, as dear 
children, and walk in love, not allowing certain sins which he men- 
tioned to be once named among them as they were unbecoming to saints. 
Eph. 5=1-4. The writer to the Hebrews, also, surrounding himself and 
his brethren with a cloud of martyrs, exhorts "let us lay aside every 
weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with 
patience the race that is set before us ; looking unto Jesus the author 
and finisher of our faith. Heb. 12:1. 

(c.) Self purification from sin is another of the means. 



451 Abstract of Theology. 

We find Paul urging upon his brethren at Rome not to yield their 
members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin, but to yield 
themselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and their 
members as instruments of righteousness unto God. Rom. 6:13. So, 
also, in view of their adoption by God, he exhorts the Corinthians to 
cleanse themselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting 
holiness in the fear of God. 2 Cor. 7*1. "They that are in Christ" 
it is said "have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. Gal. 
5:24. The apostle John declares that "every man that hath this hope 
in him purifieth himself, even as he (Christ) is pure." 1 John 3:3. 

(d.) The warnings of God's word are also means to the same end. 
They imply the importance of Christian exertion, and the value of 
effort as well as the possibility of danger. The Hebrews were warned 
that they should fear lest, a promise being left of rest, any of them 
should seem to come short of it. Heb. 4=1. They are especially' 
warned to go on unto perfection, upon the ground that "it is impossi- 
ble, for them who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the 
heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have 
tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if 
they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they 
crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open 
shame." Heb. 6 : 4-6. This was a description of such persons as they 
themselves were; of real Christians. They were, in themselves, in real 
danger of such a fall. They were only secure from it through the 
purpose and power and grace of God. This danger was therefore a 
fit cause for exhortation to them to push forward unto perfection. 
There were doubtless many around them who had appeared, or had 
professed to have the privileges here referred to, who, by their deser- 
tion of Christianity, were inflicting grievous evil upon the cause of 
Christ. These Christians were tempted to commit the same sin. 
Should they do this, they could not be renewed again unto repentance; 
and this warning was given as the means under God of restraining 
them from sin. It is thought by some, that this passage shows the 
possibility of a fall from grace, and therefore is contrary to the doc- 
trine of the perseverance of the saints. It is admitted that, regarded 
in their own strength only, there was this possibility of fall in the 
persons thus addressed. But the doctrine we are considering does not 
regard the believer as preserved and as persevering only through him- 
self. He is thus kept by God ; not by his own power. One of the 
means, by which this is done, is that he is warned of the danger in 



Abstract of Theology. 452 

which he is of himself, that he may co-operate with God, so as not 
only to be preserved, but also to persevere in the divine life. Of like 
purpose, and to the same effect, are the other warnings found in the 
tenth chapter of this Epistle in verses 26-29.38, and those in 2 Pet. 
2:20.22, and elsewhere in the Scriptures. 

The means mentioned are only some of the numerous ways in which 
the Christian is led to persevere in the divine life, actively co-operating 
with the grace of God. It is because God bestows, and man attains, 
as the apostle Peter so completely sets forth in his preceding remarks, 
that he exhorts his brethren, "give diligence to make your calling and 
election sure," adding, "for if ye do these things ye shall never fall : 
for so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into 
the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." 2 
Pet. 1:10.11. It is because of the divine help afforded through the 
incarnation, and humiliation, and consequent exaltation of Christ 
Jesus, that the apostle could urge the Philippians, "work out your 
own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God which worketh 
in you both to will and to do of his .good pleasure." Phil. 2 12.13. 

It will be seen, from the preceding statements, that the doctrine 
of the perseverance of the saints does not deny that Christians are 
liable to sin, nor that they do sin, nor that they do turn away 
from God, and backslide from their Christian profession, and even 
fall into grievous wrong, by which they displease God, and lose 
confidence and hope in Him, and become barren and unfruitful in 
good works: nor does it deny that final apostasy would be possible 
to the Christian if he were left to the exercise of his own will, sub- 
ject, as he would be, not only to the natural fallibility of a crea- 
ture, but to the still continuing lusts of his flesh, and tempted not 
only by these, but by the attractions of the w T orld, and the malice 
of Satan. But it asserts, that it is the purpose of God that none 
shall finally be lost who have been given to Christ by the Father, 
and have by faith been vitally united with him, and justified through 
him; and that, for the fulfilment of this purpose, the power of God 
is sufficient to keep them unto final salvation, and the love of Christ is 
so invincible, in his forbearance, mercy, and grace, that nothing can 
separate them from it. It also teaches, that they are not saved 
while indulging in sin, and' walking after their own lusts; but that 
they are sanctified through the work of the Holy Spirit, which enables 
them so to persevere in the divine life in co-operation with his influences, 
that their life and salvation is not a mere gift without effort on 



453 Abstract of Theology. 

their part, but a growth through perseverance unto the end in the 
use of the appointed means. 

It is well to notice briefly some of the objections presented to this 
doctrine. 

1. One of the most plausible of these is based upon the apostasy 
of the nation of Israel despite the many promises with which it was 
blessed. 

But the analogy of God's dealings with His ancient people, favours, 
rather than opposes, the doctrine of final perseverance. Their history 
presents to us just such cases of backsliding, and recovery, as have 
been pointed out as true of Christian believers. The backsliding was 
through their sin, the recovery through the power and grace of God. 
The one followed the other, at greater, or less intervals, but always 
followed it. Is it said, however, that Israel is now entirely cast away? 
But such is not the teaching of the word of God. Paul expressly 
denies this, and teaches their restoration to God when the fulness of 
the Gentiles has come in. Rom. 11;26. It is to be remembered also 
that the calling of Israel was that of the nation, and not of the in- 
dividuals within it. The fact that many Israelites have been lost 
eternally, and beyond rescue, does not affect the fulfilment of any 
gracious purpose of God towards the nation as such. 

There are many, however, who interpret all the promises for the 
future as made simply of the gathering of the spiritual Israel. Even 
were this position incorrect there has been no failure in God's covenant 
relation to the natural Israel, for the promises to it were all based upon 
the condition of their faithfulness to God. God, therefore, has not 
failed, even if He has cast them off forever. 

It is especially to be noticed? also, that the new covenant made in 
Christ, is one which includes not only the promise of the blessing, but 
of the establishment in His people of the conditions upon which these 
blessings depend. The nature of the new covenant is set forth in the 
prophecy of Jeremiah, and, with its statements, many other passages 
of Scripture concur. From its very nature, it is impossible that the 
blessings promised in it should not be given to all the people of God. 
'Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new cov- 
enant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah. Not 
according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day 
that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; 
which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, 



Abstract of Theology. 454 

saith the Lord : but this shall be the covenant that I will make with 
the house of Israel ; after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my 
law in their. inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be 
their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no 
more every man his neighbour and every man his brother, saying, know 
the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the 
greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and 
I will remember their sin no more. Jer. 31:31-34. See also Jer. 
32:38-40. 

2. It is again objected that the warnings against apostasy, and ex- 
hortations to perseverance, imply the possibility, and danger of fall 
on the part of those to whom they were addressed. Even if this were 
absolutely true, it would not be proof that any have fallen away, or 
shall fall away. These very warnings might become effective to guard 
against the danger, as the signs set up in hazardous places, are the 
means by which the danger is avoided. But, as has been already 
explained, this danger arises solely from the believer if left to himself; 
the certainty that he will not finally fall away depends upon God's 
purpose to preserve him, and to enable him to persevere. These 
warnings and exhortations, are, therefore, perfectly consistent with 
his safety, and are the signs of danger which God sets up to prevent 
the fall of His servants. 

3. It is objected, however, that, while we have instances of some 
who are rescued from their grievous sins, and blackslidings, the Scrip- 
ture also gives examples of others who are left to perish. But the doc- 
trine of God's word is that of the perseverance of believers ; of -the 
elect of God ; of those called to be saints. An examination of the 
cases mentioned will show no reason for believing those who thus fell 
away to have been of this class. Indeed, in most cases the contrary 
is taught. The case of Judas is the most prominent. It would seem 
more nearly to correspond, than any other, with the privileges referred 
to in Heb. 6:4.5. and yet Christ proclaimed his condition, as not that of 
a Christian, about a year before his betrayal. "Have not I chosen you 
twelve and one of you is a devil ? He spake of Judas Iscariot the son 
of Simon." John 6:70.71. We need no better proof that this man, in 
the betraying of our Lord, did not fall from a state of grace and salva- 
tion into the perdition to which he was doomed. 

So also as to Simon Magus, Peter expressly declared, "Thou hast 
neither part nor lot in this matter : for thy heart is not right in the 
sight of God. * * I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness 



455 Abstract of Theology. 

and the bonds of iniquity." Acts 8=21.23. The apostle John seems, 
in general terms, to state the truth as to all those who finally depart 
from the faith. "They went out from us, but they were not of us ; 
for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us : but 
they went out, that they might be made manifest how that they all 
are not of us." 1 John 2=19. [Canterbury Revision]. 



Abstract of Theology. 456 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE XXXIX. 



Death and the Soul's Immortality. 

We proceed next to the consideration of the death of man, and other 
topics which are intimately connected with it. In the present lecture 
will be discussed death ; the immortality of the soul ; and the condi- 
tion of the latter between the hour of death, and that of reunion with 
the body. 

I. Death. 

The term death is most commonly applied to that separation of soul 
and body which is the most manifest form in which the penalty of sin 
is seen among men. That there is a death of the soul also, and 
that it is something far more terrible than the death of the body, 
has been shown in the lecture on the "Effects of Adam's sin," pp. 
262-267. But, that death is spiritual in its nature, and does not for- 
bid the continued existence of the soul, and its dread realities will be 
more plainly evinced in the unseen hereafter. Consequently the sep- 
aration of body and soul makes a more profound impression among 
living men, and to it the term death is almost exclusively appro- 
priated. 

It is sometimes called "natural," or "physical" death, to distinguish 
it from that which is "spiritual ;" the death "of the body," as opposed 
to that "of the soul;" and "temporal" death, in contrast with that 
which is eternal. 



457 Abstract of Theology. 

This separation of body and soul is the almost universal destiny of 
men. The Scriptures, however, teach that Enoch did not die but 
"God took him," Gen. 5:24, and that he "was translated that- he should 
not see death," Heb. 11=5 ; also that Elijah "went up by a whirlwind 
into heaven,'' 2 Kings 2:11. Some have supposed that, in like man- 
ner Moses escaped death, but it is expressly stated that he died, and was 
buried in the land of Moab. Deut. 34 4.5. But Paul declared that, at 
the second coming of the Lord, "we, which are alive, and remain, shall 
be caught up together with them (the dead in Chirist) in the clouds, 
to meet the Lord in the air = and so shall we ever be with the Lord." 
1 Thess. 4=17. Even more explicitly he said "we shall not all sleep ; 
but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, 
at the last trump : for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be 
raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." 1 Cor. 15:51.52. This 
is the change of "our vile body that it may be fasliioned like unto his 
(Christ's) glorious body" foretold in Phil. 3:21. 

But, while death comes thus almost universally to all, there is a 
marked difference between its connection with the righteous, and with 
the wicked. 

The death of the wicked is easily accounted for. It constitutes a 
part of the penalty of sin, to which, the Scriptures teach, all men 
are liable, Rom. 5:12.14; 1 Cor. 15:21.22.53-56, but from which, as 
such, the people of God are exempted because Christ has redeemed 
them from the curse of the law. The "death of the saint" instead of 
being accursed, is "precious in the sight of the Lord," Ps. 116:15, and 
this because he has redeemed them. Ps. 72:14. His death is a death 
"unto the Lord." Rom. 14:8. Death is his. 1 Cor. 3:22. Its sting 
has been removed. 1 Cor. 15:56. But none of this is true of the 
wicked. He has neglected, or rejected the offer of salvation through 
Christ Jesus. There is no other method of escape from the penalty; 
and it rests upon him in all its fulness. 

It is not so easy to account for the death of the righteous. As he 
is no longer liable to the penalty of sin, there is no legal ground upon 
which he must endure death, and, because of which, he cannot be 
released. This is confirmed by the fact that some righteous have not 
died, and others will only be changed. But, while death may not thus 
be legally necessary, it may subserve many purposes in the gracious 
providence of God, and is, ordinarily, the best way for the Christian to 
attain the "change" for which he is destined. This should be believed 
even if it could in no respect be explained. 



Absteact of Theology. . 458 

It ought not to be forgotten that this is not the only dealing of God 
with His people, which evidently arises from some wise purpose which 
He has not fully revealed. They might have been taken out of the 
world as soon as they were justified. Yet, that this is graciously and 
wisely prevented, is evident from Christ's declining to pray for it. John 
17=15. They might have been preserved from affliction, and persecu- 
tion, and similar inflictions from God or man. That these are blessed 
to them, is no proof that they would not have been more blessed with- 
out them, for they are taught to look forward to greater bliss 
in their exemption from them in Heaven. Our Lord prayed that they 
might be kept from the Evil One, and they are doubtless protected 
from his power in answer to this prayer, but they are still left subject 
to his influences, and temptations, and are very far from escaping the 
presence and pollution of sin. In all of these things, we see some 
reasons for the action of God, though our knowledge is imperfect and 
incomplete. It ought not to be thought strange if, in like manner, we 
can only account partially for the death of true believers. 

1. Some have thought that, for the attainment of perfect sanctifi- 
cation, it is necessary that the soul and body be separated, and the 
body reduced to its original elements. That this is not necessary is 
manifest from the examples of exemption from death already stated. 
But it may be admitted to be the ordinary method which God has 
ordained for such sanctification. For the desired perfection, there 
must be removal of the passions and appetites of the flesh by which 
man is tempted not only from himself, but through himself. The 
"change" at the last day accomplishes this in an extraordinary manner. 
The more ordinary method of God seems to be through death, in which, 
by its separation from the body, the soul is freed from these temptations, 
and enabled to live perfectly the life of holiness for which it longs. 

2. Another opinion which has been expressed, is, that death is 
natural to man, and that it, from its nature, becomes the means of his 
passing from a lower to a higher condition ; in which through a more 
advanced organism the soul may live a more exalted life. 

This opinion may be held either about the original, or the fallen 
condition of man. If about the original condition, it involves the 
position that the body of man was created mortal, and that its death, 
as a penalty, was hot something superadded when man sinned ; but is 
simply the natural condition of man'slife used by God as penalty, and 
so made known to man. 



459 Abstract of Theology. 

If held, however, only as to man's present natural condition, it 
would not necessarily involve an original mortality. 

As to this opinion, in either form, as' well as to the former, it is 
necessary that it recognize death simply as the ordinary method of 
man's passing into another life; for in respect to each of them the ex- 
emption of some shows that the end may be by other means accom- 
plished. It derives some support from the analogy of the necessity of 
death in the seed for its change to a higher form presented in 1. Cor. 
15:36-38. 

3. Death is supposed by some to be necessary for a life oi faith, 
rather than of sight, in the Christian. It is thought, that, on this 
account, it would be injurious to make so marked a distinction between 
the righteous, and the wicked, as would exist in the death of the latter 
and the change of the former in some other way." But the reason for 
this opinion is not apparent. It might be true, were the Christian 
personally changed in body as soon as he believes. But it would 
not be, if the change should occur only at the time when, otherwise, 
his death would take place. Doubtless the translation of Enoch was 
one fitted to produce a profound impression on his contemporaries. It 
certainly had had no evil influence on his own life. So, if the Christian 
should have no other certainty of exemption from death, than he now 
has of salvation, he could derive no motives from that exemption 
which would militate against his life of faith. It is much more prob- 
ably because God does not choose to continue the miraculous testimony 
to the truth of Christianity throughout all time. But had He done 
this, the lives of Christians in the later ages would have been no less 
lives of faith than were those of Apostolic times. 

4. It has been more generally stated that Death is a means of 
chastisement. It has been shown that, while suffering is common to 
both, it is inflicted in punishment, by an angry God, in the way of 
penalty and in chastisement, by a loving Father, only for correction, 
and discipline; and thus, that the same event, death, may be a curse 
to the wicked, and a blessing to the righteous. It has been argued 
that this is the reason why even a Christian man must die. This is 
true so far as the death of the Christian is a cause of suffering and 
pain, either in death itself, or in his contemplation of it. It is un- 
doubtedly often a cause of this kind. Even to the Christian it 
assumes not always an aspect altogether pleasant. He naturally 
shrinks from its loathsome embrace. It is an enemy, even if it is 
"the last enemy," and one over which he is "more than conqueror." 



Abstract of Theology. 460 

But death is not always regarded with dread. The Christian's thoughts 
sometimes leap forward to it with exultant joy. Especially is it true, 
that seldom, if ever, in the hour of death is the true Christian filled with 
apprehension and gloom. His own death becomes no chastisement in 
the event itself. God in that hour gives such sustaining grace that 
each of His servants is hopeful, peaceful, joyful, even sometimes 
triumphant. 

5. Whether able, or not, definitely to state on what grounds the 
Christian is subjected to death, we know that it is a blessing to him. 
The inquiry into its cause, and the various reasons suggested, proceed 
apparently on the supposition that it is an evil which it would be 
desirable had he been spared. But the Scriptures speak of death as 
among the "all things" which belong to the Christian. 1 Cor. 3:22. 
This does not deny its possibly painful character, but asserts that, 
however painful, it is made his possession, and therefore is used for 
his benefit. This is in accordance with the universal law of blessing 
to him which the Apostle announces in Rom. 8:28; "we know that all 
things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are 
the called according to His purpose." The principle of this, law, 
however, admits either blessing or suffering. The suffering in connec- 
tion with death was pointed out under the previous division. It will 
suffice briefly to indicate here some of the blessings also associated 
with it. 

(1.) Death is a blessing to the Christian, because, through its con- 
templation, his sanctification and purification in this life is carried 
forward. This contemplation of it includes all the aspects in which 
it presents itself, whether painful or otherwise. 

(2.) It is a blessing, because in it he looks forward to the attain- 
ment of final freedom from sin, and perfect sanctification. 

(3.) It is a blessing, because he recognizes it as the portal to the 
possession of eternal life. 

(4.) Death is a blessing, because it gives him an opportunity of 
giving strong testimony in favour of Christ and his religion. 

(5.) It is felt to be a blessing, because it opens the doors to imme- 
diate conscious personal presence with his Saviour. 

These points are obvious and need not be elaborated. 



461 Abstract of Theology. 

II. Immortality. 

When the immortality of the soul is spoken of, its unending future 
life is usually meant. This is the immortality which is common to the 
righteous, and the wicked. The righteous, however, possess, also 
that true immortality which the Scriptures teach to be that of the 
true life of the soul. 

1. The unending life of the soul has been argued upon various 
grounds. 

(1.) Reason alone has been supposed by many to furnish adequate 
arguments in proof of its truth. 

(a.) The longing of the soul for immortal existence has been deemed 
to be an instinct implanted within, which gives assurance of its gratifica- 
tion. But, while, with a few, there may have been aspirations after a 
nobler and better life than that of earth, it may be questioned whether, 
in the vast multitude of men, there is more than a shrinking from the 
loss of such life as is possessed in the present stage of existence. The 
instinct seems, therefore, to be rather that dread of death which is 
not unknown to the mere animal, and which is given for the protec- 
tion of the life that now is, and not as a basis of hope of that which 
may be hereafter. 

(b.) The inequality, which is so manifest in the apportionment of 
good and evil to the characters and conduct of men on earth, has* 
almost universally, led to the belief of a future life, in which these 
will be duly adjusted. But, by these facts, is taught merely a future 
life, and not one necessarily of an unending duration; but only of suf- 
ficient length for such adjustment. It is the Word of God alone that 
teaches that the bliss or woe, which is the portion of man at death, 
will continue forever. It must be acknowledged, however, that, as 
universal as has been the belief in a state of future rewards and pun- 
ishments, has also been the opinion that it shall never end. 

(c.) This general belief in an unending life, has also been accounted 
for on the supposition that it is an intuitive perception of the mind. 
But it does not appear that such knowledge as reason can give of 
what the soul is, and of what endless existence means, awakens at 
once the conviction that the soul must exist forever. The most 
thoughtful men, who have been guided by nature only, have been 
afflicted with doubts, and alternate hopes, and fears, without attaining 
more than earnest, or, at most, confident expectation, much less such 
knowledge of a continuous future, as would result from the existence 
of an intuitive conception. 









Abstract of Theology. 462 

(d.) The capacity of indefinite progress in the mental and moral 
powers of men, has seemed, to many, to indicate a stage of being in 
which it may be developed. Bat no one will assert that there is here 
more than an indication, which is opposed by the evidence of the 
great waste in the productions of nature, and which, therefore, 
needs confirmation from some more decisive source to become other 
than a mere expectation. 

(e.) Some metaphysicians have argued the indestructible nature 
of the soul from its pure simplicity. They have believed it to be on- 
compounded, and, therefore, incapable of dissolution, and consequent 
destruction. This is based upon the belief that it is purely spiritual, 
and that simplicity is a necessary attribute of spirit. But these facts 
are difficult to prove. They are by no means undisputed among those 
who rely on reason alone. It is from the Scriptures that we learn the 
different origin of body and soul, and that the latter came not from 
matter. Philosophy has not always regarded the soul as a unit. The 
terms "soul," "mind," and "spirit," indicate a tendency to recognize, 
at least, some threefold aspects in the human spirit, in accordance 
with which, even while asserting the absolute unity of the soul, Mental 
Philosophy has recognized the threefold division of the will, the under- 
standing, and the affections. It is well known that the most of the 
Grecian philosophers, following Plato, held to a distinction between 
psuche, (the animal life or soul,) and nous and pneurna, (the rational 
spirit). Even some Christian writers of our own day have maintained 
the same views. In this state of uncertainty, therefore, reason cannot 
speak convincingly of an ever continuing life of man, on the ground of 
the simplicity, and consequent indestructibility, of his spiritual 
nature. 



It appears, therefore, that, from reason alone, all that can be at- 
tained, even as to a merely future state, is expectation ; or at most 
belief upon uncertain grounds. It is true that, if it could be estab- 
lished that the soul dies with the body, certain hopes, and fears would 
remain unaccounted for, and certain problems of divine government 
would be unexplained ; but these could, at most, only produce convic- 
tion of some future state ; and would prove nothing as to its unending 
or even indefinite duration. 

(2.) The Scriptures, however, teach plainly the continued existence 
of all men after death. 



463 Abstract of Theology. 

(a.) It is every where assumed as a fact, neither to be doubted, nor 
proved; but that will be at once received without question. 

(b.) The cases of Enoch and Elijah gave signal proof of another 
world than this into which even men might enter. But they 
furnished no evidence that any other than these two would go thither. 
They simply showed that the possible existence of men, otherwise than 
on this earth, has been actually realized in these servants of God. 
But, so far from thus furnishing conclusive proof of the future life of 
other men, the fact that these were not removed through death, but 
by extraordinary means, natually suggested the possibility that ex- 
emption from death is necessary to that life, and that all those who go 
down to the grave perish altogether. It was Only to those otherwise 
taught of the continued existence of the soul, that their removal gave 
confirmatory proof of such immortality. In like manner, we are 
taught the same truths by the presence of Moses, and Elijah, at the 
scene of the Transfiguration. The appearance at various times of angels 
to men furnishes additional proof of another world. The resurrection 
and ascension of Jesus Christ confirm most conclusively the doctrine 
of a future life. 

(c.) The Scriptures teach, in the account of the creation of man, 
that his soul did not originate from the dust ; but was a direct spirit- 
ual creation of God. Gen. 2:7. They make further statements about 
the difference between soul, and body, confirmatory of the distinction 
made in their creation. Gen. 25:8; 35:29; Ecc. 12:7; Matt. 10:28; 
Acts 7:59. 

(d.) They make express reference to the existence of the soul after 
death. 2 Sam. 12=23; Job 19:25-27. [Conant translates this passage. 
"But I, I know my Redeemer lives, and in aftertime will stand upon 
the earth ; and after this my skin is destroyed, and without my flesh, 
shall I see God. Whom I, for myself, shall see, and my eyes behold, 
and not another, when my reins are consumed within me]. Matt. 
22:32: 25:46; Luke 16:19-31; John 11:25; 2 Cor. 5=1-4; Jude. 14.15. 

(e.) They make known that this future life is the lot of the wicked, 
as well as the righteous ; teaching that it is one of happiness to the 
latter, and of condemnation and misery to the former. Matt. 20:23 ; 
25:46; John 6=47; 12:25; 1 Cor. 15:17-20. 

(f.) They declare the continuance of this, at least until the day of 
the Resurrection and Final Judgment. Job. 21:30; Ecc, 3:17; Luke 
14:14; John 5=28.29; Acts 24:15; Rom. 14=10; 1 Cor. 15:51.52; 
2 Cor. 5=10; 1 Thess. 4=13-17. 






Abstract of Theology. 464 

(g.) They represent the decisions of the judgment day as fixing the 
destinies of men, for an unending existence. The evidence ol this 
teaching will be given in the discussion of "The Judgment Day." 

The Scriptures are thus seen to teach conclusively the doctrine of 
an unending future life of all men. This, as has been stated, is what 
is common!} 7 - referred to as the immortality of the soul. 



Before passing from this part of the discussion, special attention is 
called to the following statements of what is included in this kind of 
immortality. 

1. Unending existence essentially belongs to spiritual natures. 
When, therefore, -the Scriptures have taught that the soul is a spirit, 
the way is prepared for the metaphysical argument based upon the 
simplicity of the soul, and its consequent indestructibility. It is com- 
mon, therefore, to speak of the natural immortality of the soul. By 
this is meant, that, because of its nature, it has an unending life. It 
has no elements of dissolution in it. Life belongs to it, because it is 
spirit. Just as God has ni£ide extension, and divisibility, properties of 
matter, so, has He made unending life a natural property of spirit. 

2. But this essential property of spirit must ever be recognized as 
one conferred upon it. It is because God has so made spirit, that it 
has this unending life. It is not a property that belongs to it from 
any necessity in God, or out of God. It is the result of His purpose, 
or will, and of His power. He has made spirit to be thus, because He 
has so willed. Doubtless, had He otherwise chosen, the result could 
have been different. To believe otherwise is to put an unjustifiable 
limit upon His power, and upon His absolute freedom of will, as to all 
outward matters. It thus appears that they speak falsely, even blas- 
phemously, who say that God could not destroy, or annihilate spirit, 
if He should choose. That which prevents such annihilation, is that 
He has not so chosen, and will not so choose. 

The impossibility is not in the lack of power, but in the unchange- 
ableness of His will. This is no imperfection of inability, but the 
highest perfection of immutability. 



The immortality, which has been thus far discussed, is that which 
is common to both the righteous and the wicked. In the beginning of 
this part of this lecture, it was stated^that the righteous possess also 
that immortality which is the true life of the soul. The death of the 



465 Abstract of Theology. 

soul, and its life, are set forth in the Word of God as something dis- 
tinct, not only from that of the body, but even from the unending 
natural life of the soul. The spiritual death of the soul has been 
described in the lecture on the Effects of Adam's Sin, pp. 261-266, as 
something different from natural death, and as constituting the most 
fearful of the penalties inflicted because of sin. It was there shown 
that the Scriptures describe it in the various aspects of alienation 
from God, loss of God's favour, and corruption of the moral nature. 
The true immortality of the Christian consists in the removal of all 
these evils, and the bestowment upon him of their corresponding bless- 
ings. That this is done, and that this is the condition into which he is 
thus brought will abundantly appear from the following passages of 
Scripture. Matt. 10:39; 16:35. (cf. Mark 8:35); 18:9. (parallel' pass- 
ages, Mark 9:45; Luke 9:24 ; 17:33; John 12:25); 19:17; John 3:36; 
5:24.40; 6:33.35.50-58.63; 20:31 ; Rom. 6:4 ; 8:6.13; 2 Cor. 3:6 ; 
Eph. 4:18; 1 John 3:14; 5;12. 

The contrast in immortality, between the righteous, and the wicked, 
is very marked. "The wicked is driven away in his wickedness; but 
the righteous hath hope in his death." Prov. 14:32. "When a wicked 
man dieth, his expectation shall perish." Prov. 11:7. But "blessed are 
the dead which die in the Lord"; * * * their works do 
follow them." Rev. 14:13. 

The happiness of this immortality of the Christian is the greater 
because it is a state in which he is confirmed forever. The law of this 
condition, both of the righteous, and the wicked, is laid down in Rev. 
22:11. "He that is unrighteous, let him do unrighteousness still : and 
he that is filthy, let him be made filthy still : and he that is righteous, 
let him do righteousness still: and he that is holy, let him be made 
holy still." [Canterbury Revision.] As the wicked shall not change 
his state, so shall not the righteous, his. The day of his trial and 
probation is over, and he stands secure of the bliss of heaven, confirmed 
by the unfailing promises of God. The scenes, through which he has 
passed on earth, fill him with no apprehensions that his weakness and 
insufficiency, will disable him from performing the perfect service of 
heaven. The recollection of Adam's trial will suggest to him no pos- 
sibility that he will be subjected to a test which will dissolve forever 
the bonds which unite him to God. Even the sin of the angels will 
not alarm him. For he is now assured of that "eternal life which God, 
that cannot lie, promised before^ the world began." Tit. 1:2. This is 
immortality indeed. This, and not mere continued life, is the life and 



Absteact of Theology. 466 

immortality which he confers, "who hath abolished death, and hath 
brought life and immortality to light through the gospel." 2 Tim. 
1:10. 

III. The Intermediate State. 

The Scriptures teach that the soul and body that have been sepa- 
rated in death, will be reunited at the Judgment Day. Meantime, the 
body crumbles into dust, and appears to be totally destroyed. The 
spirit has returned unto God who gave it. Ecc. 12:7. Hence, at his 
martyrdom, we hear the first dying Christian "calling upon God, and 
saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Acts 7:59. 

It is not in accordance with the methods of God in His revelations 
to man to answer the many inquiries which curiosity might suggest 
as to this intermediate state of the soul. But much more is taught 
about it than would at first be imagined. Such facts as are given are 
valuable to confirm and strengthen faith, and to give consolation. 
Those may first be mentioned which are common to the righteous, and 
the wicked, and these may be followed by separate statements of the 
things wherein they differ. 

1. As to those respects in which the condition of the righteous 
and the wicked is the same. 

(1.) The soul exists without a body. Unquestionably it has not 
the body which it had on earth. But some have thought that it has 
some kind of a body, some spiritual body, which merely corresponds 
to, and is only thus identified with that of this life. But Paul's 
discussion of the resurrection shows, that the "spiritual" body is one 
that is to be raised out of the grave in which the natural body was 
buried, and that it is "at the last trump" that "the dead shall be 
raised." 1 Cor. 15:44.52-54. 

Some have argued, that body of some kind is necessary to give 
location to these spirits. But a spirit may have location without 
occupying space as a body does. Here may be recalled the quotation 
made by Hodge from Turretine as to the different relations that 
bodies, created spirits, and God, sustain to space; given on page 75 of 
this volume. 

(2.) The condition is consequently one of an imperfect life. It is 
the life of the spirit only, and not that of the man. Human nature 
is composed of both body and spirit ; and his body is as truly a part 
of a man as is his soul. The condition, therefore, in which disembodied 
spirits exist, is not that of perfect men, but only of human spirits. 
This, which is an inference which may be drawn from the two-fold 



467 Abstract of Theology. 

nature'of man, is supported by the manner in which the Scriptures 
refer. to persons in this intermediate state. They are not spoken of 
as "men," but as "souls," and "spirits." Heb. 12:23; Rev. 6=9; 20=4. 

Another proof of this want of perfection of this condition is seen 
in the fact that the saints attain full entrance into their joy, and the 
wicked full infliction of their woe, only after the resurrection. Matt. 
13:40-43.49.50; 25=34.41.46; 1 Cor. 15=44-54. 

(3. - ) Both righteous and wicked have conscious life. This might 
have been inferred from the nature of spirit, which must always be in 
a state of conscious existence. But it is a plain teaching of the Bible. 
Luke 16:22-31. The word here translated "Hell," in the King James 
version is "Hades"; which means the place of departed spirits, and, as 
the scene occurs after the death of Lazarus, and before the final judg- 
ment, so must it be assigned to the intermediate state. In this the rich 
man is represented as in conscious torment. 

The conscious condition of the righteous is taught in 2 Cor. 5=1-8; 
Phil. 1=21-24; and also in the passages connected with Paradise. 
Luke 23:42.43; 2 Cor. 12:4; Rev. 2:7; 22:2. 

(4.) Neither the righteous nor the wicked are under probation in 
this intermediate state. Luke 16:22-31; 2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 22:11. 
Even if the language in 1 Pet. 3:19.20 and 4=6 teaches, as some have 
thought, that our Lord went to the place of departed spirits, and 
preached to them ; so that to those who had died up to the time of 
his death was given a probation in the gospel preached to them by 
him ; that would be but a single instance of a favour shown to those 
who died before his crucifixion ; and, so far from proving a probation 
beyond the grave, would, from its exceptional character, imply the 
contrary. 

2. The aspects of the intermediate state peculiar to the righteous. 

(1.) It is a condition of happiness. Paul declared that "to die is 
gain," and to depart this life far better than to remain in it. Phil. 1:21-24. 
He wrote to Timothy, looking forward exultingly to the hour of his 
death. 2 Tim. 4:6-8. He also referred to his longing for this future, as 
possessed by him in common with his brethren. 2 Cor. 5:1-8. In 
the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the happiness of the latter 
is described by his being in Abraham's bosom. Luke 16=23. 

(2.) It is a condition in which the believer is present with Christ. 
This is also taught in all the passages referred to in the previous para- 
graph, except the last; and constitutes in each of them the ground of 
the happiness which they declare. 



Abstract of Theology. 468 

(3.) The believer is also said to be in Paradise. Whatever this 
may mean, whether only a condition or a place, it is unquestionably 
true that it is intended to convey the idea of the enjoyment of very 
great happiness. The passages in which Paradise is mentioned are, 
Luke 23:43; 2 Cor. 12:4 ; Rev. 2:7. That these teach that it is a 
place, can only be denied on the ground that very highly figurative 
language is used. Only the first of these, however, refers to the pres- 
ence of Christ with any one, and this contains only his promise to the 
thief on the cross, "To day shalt thou be with me in Paradise." But 
the location of Paradise as made known by the Apostle Paul, 2 Cor. 
12:1-4, taken in connection with this first passage, makes it more than 
probable that it is the place where the saints are with Christ. The 
Scriptures teach, that "Christ was received up into heaven, and sat on 
the right hand of God." Mark 16=19 ; Luke 24:51 ; Acts 1:11 ; Acts 
2:33.34; Acts 7:55.56; Eph. 1:20; Heb. 10:12; 1 Pet. 3:22. We are 
also taught, that he must there remain, until the times of restitution of 
all things." Acts 3:21. Now, in the account Paul gives of his ecstatic 
vision in 2 Cor. 12:1-4, he tells us that he was "caught up to the third 
heaven," and "caught up into Paradise," which locates Paradise either 
in, or above the third heaven, or makes the two identical. So also 
Rev. 2=7, taken in connection with Rev. 22=2, and 21:10-27, states that 
the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God," is "in 
the midst of the street," of "that great city, the holy Jerusalem, de- 
scending out of heaven from God, having the glory of God," in which 
was no temple ; "for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the 
temple of it," and is "on either side of the river," "a pure river of 
water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God, 
and of the Lamb." The place of the abode of the saints is with 
Christ who is in the heavens with God. It is to that place that most 
probably the name of Paradise is given in the Scriptures. 

(4.) In that abode, the saints are not probably inactive. Some 
have thought this because their condition is spoken of as one of "rest," 
and "sleep." But evidently, the former of these terms is used simply to 
declare the end of the toils, and labours of this life, and the enjoyment 
of exemption from their present spiritual, as well as temporal trials. 
This does not imply that there are not intellectual and spiritual duties 
and meditations suitable to that abode, such as may give due scope 
to that activity, which seems essential to personal conscious spirits. 
The "sleep" more probably refers to the appearance of the body in 
death, and is beautifully expressive of the calm repose with which 
the Christian sinks into final dissolution. 



469 Abstract of Theology. 

(5.) Neither is the intermediate state a place of cleansing from 
sin. That it is so, is held by the Church of Rome. That church 
teaches, that, at death, all unbaptized adults, and all who have 
fallen into, and continued in mortal sin after Baptism, go immediately 
to Hell. All who have been baptized, and remain in union with that 
Church, and have attained a life of Christian perfection, go imme- 
diately to Heaven. Unbaptized infants occupy what is called "the 
limbus infantum," a place in the higher part of Hell, which the 
flames do not reach, and suffer only a "paenam damni (penalty of loss), 
and have no share in the paenam sensus" (penalty of actual suffering) 
which afflicts adult sinners." But "the great mass of partially sanc- 
tified Christians, dying in fellowship with the church, yet still encum- 
bered with imperfections, go to purgatory, where they suffer, more or 
less intensely, for a longer or shorter period, until their sins are both 
atoned for and purged out, when they are translated to heaven, during 
which intermediate period they may be efficiently assisted by the 
prayers and labours of their friends on earth." 

"They confess that this doctrine is not taught distinctly in Scripture, 
but maintain, 1st, that it follows necessarily from their general doc- 
trine of the satisfaction for sins : 2d, that Christ and the Apostles 
taught it incidentally, * ' * * * They refer to Matt. 12:32 ; 
1 Cor. 3=15." Hodge's Outlines of Theology, pp. 556, 557. 

But, the first of these passages is manifestly but a strong way of 
declaring that the sin referred to shall never be pardoned, without 
authorizing the inference that there are other sins which will be par- 
doned in the world to come. The second passage, by the various 
things which are built upon the true foundation which, if false, or 
insufficient, shall be burned, refers not to personal character, but 
to doctrinal sentiment. 

This doctrine of Purgatory is based upon the very unscriptural 
theory of salvation through personal works, and sufferings, which the 
Church of Rome holds, in connection with sacramental grace, to be- 
supplementary to the meritorious work of Christ. While it has no 
support from Scripture, it is opposed to all that the Scriptures teach 
about the intermediate state of the righteous. 

3. The aspects of the intermediate state peculiar to the wicked. 

The Scripture teaching here is much more meagre. The four 
statements already mentioned, in which their condition and that of 
the righteous are similar, comprise almost all that is said. As peculiar 
to them, however, may be added, 



Abstract of Theology. 470 

(1.) That Christ, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, 
speaks of (a) their condition as one of torment, Luke 16:23-25.28, 
(b) from which there is no escape to the condition of bliss of the 
righteous, v. 26, and (c) as endured in a place of torment, vv. 23:28. 

(2.) Those who interpret 1 Pet. 3:19.20 as referring to a personal 
preaching by Christ to the dead in Hades, necessarily hold that the 
wicked are "in prison." But, otherwise, we have no other proof than 
seems to be conveyed in the "impassable gulf" mentioned in Luke 
16:26. 

(3.) It is a place in which they are reserved for punishment in the 
day of judgment. 2 Pet. 2=9. 

(4.) The only place spoken of in connection with the wicked during 
the intermediate state is Hades, or the place of departed spirits, which 
is always translated Hell in the King James version, but is transferred 
in the Canterbury Revision. The passages in which Hades is used 
are Matt. 11:23; 16=18; Luke 10:15; 16=23; Acts 2=27.31 ; Rev. 1=18.; 
6:8; 20=13.14. 



Abstract of Theology. 472 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE XL. 



Christ's Second Coming, and the 
Resurrection. 

The incarnation of the Son of God is not his last manifestation in 
the flesh to men on earth. The Scriptures speak of another appearing, 
in connection with which is taught the resurrection of the dead, and 
the final judgment. Each of these subjects demands special discussion. 
In some works on theology, the doctrine of the Resurrection is first 
treated because of its intimate connection with death, and immortality; 
and because it terminates the intermediate state. But, inasmuch as 
the coming of Christ will precede the resurrection of the dead, it 
seems best that that be first considered. 

I. The Second Coming of Christ. 

1. The fact is distinctly revealed. 

Whatever doubts any may have about the passages sometimes quoted 
as teaching it in the Old Testament, there can be none that it is clearly 
made known in the New. 

(1.) It was taught by our Lord. Matt. 16:28; 24:36-40; 27=64; 
Mark 13:26; 14=62; Luke 21:27. 

(2.) It is the teaching of the Apostles and other inspired writers. 
1 Cor. 1:7; 15=23; 1 Thess. 2:19; 3=13; 4:15; 5=23; 2 Thess. 2=1.8; 
Heb. 9=28; James 5=7.8; 2 Pet. 3=4 ; 1 John 2=28. 



473 Abstract of Theology. 

2. The manner of it is distinctly set forth. 

(1.) It will be a personal appearance. It is not questioned that 
Christ may be said to come in other ways than personally. The hour 
of death is admitted to be the way in which he comes at present to his 
saints, at what is to them the end of time. But the Scriptures teach 
such an especial personal final coming, as can only be fulfilled in the 
bodily appearance of Christ to men. Mark 8:38 ; Acts 1:11; Heb. 
9=26-28. 1 Thess. 4:16. 

(2 ) His coming will be "without sin unto salvation" as contrasted 
with that time in which "he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice 
of himself," and was "offered to bear the sins of many." Heb. 9:26-28. 

(3.) It will be an appearance with power and glory ; "for the Lord 
himself, shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the 
archangel and with the trump of God," 1 Thess. 4=16, "with ten thou- 
sand of his saints," Jude 14, in the glory of his Father, Matt. 16:27, 
and "in his own glory, and all the holy angels with him," Matt. 25:31, 
fulfilling to believers their expectation of "the glorious appearing of 
the great God and our Saviour." Tit. 2=13. 

(4.) It will be instantaneous, and unexpected. It is indeed to be 
preceded by signs, both spiritual, and physical. But, as with those 
in the days of Noah, few will recognize these signs. Matt. 24 : 37-39 ; 
Luke 17:28. Even to these the coming will be instantaneous ; as a 
flash of lightning, Matt. 24:27 ; as a thief in the night, 1 Thess. 5:2 ; 
Rev. 16:15. 

3. The time of Christ's coming. This is represented as pecu- 
liarly unknown. Christ declared that even the Son knew not when 
it would be. It is hidden from all men. Matt. 24:36; Mark 13:32. 
Our Lord rebuked the disciples, just before his ascension, for question- 
ing him again upon this subject. Acts. 1:7. The apostle Paul in- 
deed wrote to the Philippians, "The Lord is at hand," Phil. 4:5, and 
Jesus Christ announced, "The time is at hand," Rev. L3, and to the 
church at Philadelphia sent the message: "Behold I come quickly," 
Rev. 3:11. This is again repeated unto his servants in Rev. 22:7.12.20. 
But, that these expressions, if they refer, as they apparently do, to his 
second coming, were not intended to teach what man would call 
an early coming, is evident from the fact that this second coming 
has been delayed over eighteen hundred years. The apostle Peter 
gave those in his day, who were troubled about this delay, the true 
solution, writing them, "beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, 
that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand 
years as one day." 2 Pet. 3:8. 



Abstract of Theology. 474 

4. The aspects in which he will come. 

(1.) Christ always spake of his coming as that of the Son of Man. 
By this he himself taught the same truth with which afterward the 
angel at the ascension reassured the disciples who stood "gazing up 
into heaven," namely, that he that shall come then shall be the "same 
Jesus" which was taken up. It will then be in human form that he 
will appear, and with the same sympathizing human, as well as divine 
love towards his own, which he so wonderfully displayed while on 
earth. 

(2 ) But the apostle Peter, at Pentecost, said, "Let all the house of 
Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye 
have crucified, both Lord and Christ." Acts 2 : 36. Hence, the apos- 
tles, almost exclusively, speak of Christ as Lord in connection with 
his second coming. This was their common name ior Christ, and thus 
they recognized the glorious reward bestowed upon him for the salva- 
tion wrought for them, and the "all power" given unto him in heaven 
and earth. 

(3.) It is as the Judge of the whole earth that he shall appear, 
both as Son of Man, and as Lord ; thus giving confidence to those who 
know him, and have believed in him; and striking with terror those 
who have rejected his love. 

(4.) He also comes as King, to take final possession of his king- 
dom, to share its blessings and glory with all his willing subjects, and 
to inflict punishment upon all who have refused to have him reign 
over them. 

5. The signal events which that coming will introduce. 

These are the resurrection of the bodies of the dead, and the 
change of those of the saints who are still alive; the judgment of all 
men ; and the bestowment, according to the highest equity, of his 
due reward, or punishment, upon every one of mankind. 

II. The Resurrection of the Body. 

The first in point of time of the events which accompany the 
second coming is the resurrection of the bodies of the dead. 

1. This fact is the teaching both of the Old and the New Testa- 
ments. 

It is admitted that some places, in which resurrection is mentioned, 
may speak only of a reappearance upon the stage of being of 
those who have died, and do not necessarily assert the resurrection of 
the body. Thus our Lord's reply to the Sadducees, Luke 20:37, only 



475 Abstract of Theology. 

involves the idea of continued life. So also his language in Luke 
14:14; John 6:39; and that to Martha, and her reply, John 11:23.24. 

It may also be acknowledged that, sometimes, the life and death, in 
connection with which resurrection is taught, is only spiritual, and 
that of the soul only. This seems to be the case in John 5=24-26, 
although the resurrection of the body is not unnaturally spoken of in 
the verses immediately succeeding. 

There are also places in which the resurrection of the body is spoken 
of, but not the general, or final resurrection. These may be quoted 
only as showing that such a resurrection is not impossible. Thus, the 
writer to the Hebrews refers to the faith of Abraham in the power of 
God "to raise" Isaac "up even from the dead." Heb. 11:19. We are 
also told that, after the death of Christ, "the graves were opened ; and 
many bodies of the saints which slept, arose, and came out of the 
graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city and appeared 
unto many. Matt. 27:52.53. The resurrection of Christ himself is 
taught to be a fulfilment of prophecy, Acts 2=24-31 ; 13 : 34-37, and 
a proof, not only of the possibility of a resurrection from the dead, 
1 Cor. 15=12-18, but even an assurance, and earnest of the resurrec- 
tion of the bodies of his people. 1 Cor. 15=20-23.35-45.48-54. 

But there are enough passages, of no doubtful import, both in the 
Old and New Testaments, which establish a general resurrection of 
the bodies of all men, as, Isa. 26=19; Dan. 12:2.13; Hos. 13:14; and 
John 5=28.29; Rom. 8=11.22.23; 1 Cor. 15:20-23.42-45.48-54 ; Phil. 
3:21 ; 1 Thess. 4=13-17. The last two passages only refer, indeed, to 
the change in the body ; the last one to the change in those who shall 
not die, but remain at the coming of Christ ; but their appositeness is 
readily recognized. 

2. The resurrection w r ill not be confined to the righteous only ; but 
will include the wicked also. 

The New Testament treats sometimes exclusively of the resurrec- 
tion of the righteous. This is not unnatural; for all hope connected 
with it is confined to them. So blessed is that hope, that it was fit 
that it should be frequently held out for their encouragement and 
comfort. Especially the connection between their resurrection and 
that of Christ, as the first fruits of them that sleep, tended to lead 
them into the joys produced by the consciousness of union with him, 
and their triumph with, and through him. This was not to be con- 
fined to their spiritual resurrection with him to newness of spiritual 
life; and this fact needed to be enforced, lest that of the body should 



Abstract of Theology. 476 

be forgotten in their experience of that of the soul. The objections 
to it also arose in connection with Christian hope. It is not strange 
that some should have denied it, even among the people of God, as 
the Apostle wrote to the Corinthians was true of some of them* 
1 Cor. 15:12. The doctrine was too wonderful to believe. Perhaps 
they had scientific objections to it in that day, as there have been in 
other ages of Christianity, even down to our own times. We are not 
to be surprised, also, that others should have declared that it was 
past already, and overthrown the faith of some. 2 Tim. 2:18. It 
became necessary, therefore, that it should be especially emphasized 
to the Christian believers of that day. With the single exception of 
"those that remain," who were to be "changed," it is expressly announced 
as the joyful destiny of all believers. Thus, Paul wrote to the Cor- 
inthians that "as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made 
alive." That this assertion related only to believers is evident, not 
only from the natural construction of the original Greek, but from the 
fact that his language is limited in the context to them "that are Christ's 
at his coming." 1 Cor. 15:22.23. In like manner, also, comforting 
the Thessalonians as to the Christian dead, he assigns as a reason why 
they should "sorrow, not even as others which have no hope," that 
"if w T e believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which 
sleep in Jesus will God bring with him"; asserting the change in 
those that shall remain on earth, and stating that "the dead in Christ 
shall rise first." 1 Thess. 4:13-18. 

But, that this teaching about the righteous, was not intended to 
exclude the resurrection of the wicked, is plain enough from other 
places. Thus, our Lord said "all that are in the graves shall hear his 
voice, and shall come forth ; they that have done good, unto the resur- 
rection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of 
damnation." John 5:28.29. -What is also especially significant, in 
view of his teachings exclusively elsewhere as to the resurrection of 
the just, is that Paul, in his address before Felix, confessed that he 
had "hope toward God, * * * that there shall be a resurrection 
of the dead, both of the just and the unjust." Acts 24:15. In the 
vision of John of the day of judgment he saw that "the sea gave up 
the dead that were in it, and death and hell (Hades) delivered the 
dead which were in them, * * * * and whosoever was not 
found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." Rev. 
20:13-15. These passages show distinctly a resurrection of the wicked 
from the grave also, and, therefore, a resurrection of their bodies. 



477 Abstract of Theology. 

3. The nature of the resurrection body. 

We are told nothing as to the nature of the resurrection bodies 
of the wicked. But enough is said as to those of the Saints to 
show that their change will be most blessed. 

The all embracing fact is distinctly declared that they shall be like 
unto that of their Lord. If we knew the precise nature of his body 
we should know the nature of those of all his saints. But it is 
enough to know that he will "fashion anew the body of our humilia- 
tion, that it may be conformed to the body of his glory." Phil. 3:21. 
[Canterbury Revision]. We are taught many things, however, about 
the resurrection body ; the chief source of information being the fif- 
teenth chapter of 1st Corinthians, where Paul states, 

(a.) that it will be incorruptible, 

(b.) that it will be immortal, 

(c.) that will it will be a glorified body, 

(d.) that it will be raised in power, 

(e.) that it will be identical with the present body. That which is 
raised is the "it" which is sown. It is "this corruptible" that "puts 
on incorruption," this "mortal" that' "puts on immortality." 

(f.) Yet it is an identity which exists not without a great change, 
v. 51. 

(g.) Yet with no greater change than occurred in the body of 
Christ. It is his image which is to be borne instead of that of Adam, 
v. 49. 

(h.) When Paul asserts that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the 
kingdom of God," v. 50, he means only to deny that a corrupt and 
mortal body can thus inherit, and not to assert that such inheritance 
is not true of a glorified body of material substance, from which all 
corruption and mortal elements have been removed. 

(i.) We consequently see w T hat he means by the spiritual body in 
vv. 44-46, where he contrasts it with the "natural," and declares 
the resurrection body to be "spiritual." It is not spiritual in the 
sense that it is not material; for it is composed of matter. But, it is 
spiritual, as being fitted for the spiritual life hereafter, as it had pre- 
viously been natural, as fitted for the animal life of this world. This 
is the pneumatic body as'opposed to the psychical. As the first body 
had been suited to the present life, and could not be used in the life 
to come without change ; so the resurrection body is suited to the life 
to come, and not to the present stage of being. Hence it is that the 
change, with or without death, does not take place until the time of 
reunion in which the pneumatic life is to begin. 



Abstract of Theology. 478 

4. There shall be a general resurrection of the bodies of the 
righteous, and the wicked at the coming of Christ to judgment. 

(1.) The rewards of the righteous are especially associated with 
Christ's coming in the great day. Matt. 16:27; Luke 12:37; 1 Cor. 
1:7.8; 1 Thess. 3:13; 2 Thess. 1:7.10; 1 Pet. 5:4; 1 John 2:28; 4:17. 

(2.) The suffering and punishment of the wicked are also intimately 
connected with the day of Christ's coming to judgment. John 12:48; 
2 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:7. 

(3.) There are passages also in which both the reward of the right- 
eous, and the punishment of the wicked are set forth unitedly in connec- 
tion with the second coming of Christ. Matt. 16:24-27; 24:36-51; 
Mark 13:24-27; Rom. 2:1-16; 1 Cor. 4:5; 1 Pet. 5=7-9; 2 Pet. 2:9. 

(4.) The righteous, and the wicked are judged together. Ecc. 3:17 ; 
Dan. 12:2; Matt. 16=27; Acts 17:31; Rom. 2:1-16; 2 Cor. 5:10; 
Heb. 9:27. 

- (5.) The resurrection of the dead occurs at the same time with the 
judgment. Dan. 12:2; Rev. 20=12.13. 

(6.) The resurrection and the change that occurs in it are also 
associated with the coming of Christ. 1 Cor. 15=52; Phil, 3=21; 
1 Thess. 4=16. 

(7.) The judgment, and the coming of Christ, take place in imme- 
diate conjunction. Matt. 16=27; 25:31-46; 2 Pet. 3:7-10. 

(8.) The resurrection of both just, and unjust, shall occur at the 
same time. Dan. 12=2; John 5:28.29; Acts 24:15. 

(9.) The unjust are reserved unto the day of judgment. 2 Pet. 2=9. 

(10.) At the time of Christ's coming, the world is to be destroyed, 
and the promise fulfilled of "new heavens and a new earth wherein 
dwelleth righteousness." 2 Pet. 3:8-13. But, that day is also the 
day of "judgment, and perdition of ungodly men"; for which the 
heavens and earth which are now * * * are kept in store, 
reserved unto fire," v. 7. 

These statements show that the general teaching of the Word of 
God is that the Lord will come ; that at his coming there shall be a 
general resurrection of the just and unjust, who shall be judged ac- 
cording to the deeds done in the body. Not only is it not taught that 
there are two resurrections of the body, the one of the righteous at 
the second coming of the Lord, and the other of the wicked at the 
general judgment, after an interval of one thousand years; but the 
judgment and the coming of the Lord are recognized as contempora- 



479 Abstract of Theology. 

neous, The day of both events is called by various names, some of 
which are repeated more than once: as "the day," 1 Cor. 3:13; "that 
day," Matt. 7=22; "the day of judgment," 2 Pet. 2:9 ; "the day of 
God," 2 Pet. 3:12; "the day of the Lord," 1 Thess. 5:2; "the day of 
our Lord Jesus Christ," 1 Cor. 1:8; "the day of Jesus Christ," Phil. 
L6; "the day of Christ," Phil. 2:16; "the day of the Lord Jesus," 
1 Cor. 5:5 ; "the last day," John 6=39 ; "the grea't day," Jude 6 ; "the 
great day of his wrath,' Eev. 6:17 ; "the day of wrath and revelation 
of the righteous judgment of God," Rom. 2:5 ; "that great and notable 
day of the Lord/' Acts 2 : 20 ; "the day when God shall judge the 
secrets of men by Jesus Christ," Rom. 2=16; "the day wherein the 
Son of Man cometh," Matt. 25:13; "the day when the Son of Man 
is revealed," Luke 17:30; "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ," 
1 Thess. 3:13; "the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ," 1 Tim. 
6:14; "the revelation of Jesus Christ," 1 Pet. 113 ; "the glorious 
appearing of the Great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ," Tit. 2:13, 
etc. 

There is, however, one passage of Scripture which some claim 
teaches one resurrection of the bodies of the just, and another of those 
of the unjust; and places them at a wide interval apart, with numer- 
ous intervening events. Those who maintain this view hold that the 
thousand years of the Millenium succeed the second coming of Christ, 
and the resurrection of the righteous. This passage constitutes the 
twentieth chapter of the book of Revelation. It is the record of that 
vision, in which John saw the angel bind Satan, in the bottomless pit, 
for a thousand years; during which the souls of the saints lived, and 
reigned with Christ. "This," says John, "is the first resurrection." 
On those having part in it, "the second death hath no power." When 
the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, 
and go out to deceive the nations. When the number of the forces 
which he gathers, which are like the sands of the sea, surround the 
camp of the saints, these forces will be devoured by fire from Heaven, 
and the devil cast into the lake of fire and brimstone. Then appears the 
great white throne, and the judgment of the dead, according to their 
works, and the resurrection of the dead, both small and great, and 
the judgment of the dead out of the books. And then death and 
Hades are cast into the lake of fire. "This," says John, "is the second 
death." 

It is readily admitted as to this passage that whatever is truly taught 
in it must be accepted as the word of God. But, 



Abstract of Theology. 480 

(1.) We must be careful how we receive any interpretation which 
does not accord with the rest of Scripture. Before doing so, we should 
examine thoroughly both the interpretation we wish to accept, and the 
views attained from other parts of the Word of God. We know that 
Scripture cannot contradict itself, when rightly interpreted. All its 
parts must, therefore, be carefully compared to see in what interpre- 
tation they agree. 

(2 ) If, after the best efforts to harmonize this with the other por- 
tions of God's Word, it should seem to be irreconcileable with them, 
the apparent interpretation of this passage should yield to that of 
others ; not so much because it is one only, as compared with a greater 
number; but because it is found in a book of highly figurative prophecy, 
in which the literal interpretation is not so justly to be pressed, as in 
others, which are not of this character, and in which the literal mean- 
ing is more apt to be the mind of the Spirit. 

(3 ) The language of this passage, however, is, at least, in some 
respects, opposed to the idea of two resurrections of the body ; the 
first, that of the saints to reign with Christ for a thousand years, and 
the second, that of the wicked to judgment. 

(a.) Because those who are represented as belonging to the first 
resurrection, are not spoken of as clothed in resurrection bodies; but, 
on the contrary, John declares simply that he saw "the souls of them 
that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, etc." v. 4. 

(b.) It is not only not said that those who partake of the first 
resurrection are not among the dead, who are subsequently delivered up 
by death, and Hades to be jndged, v. 13, but it is implied that they 
are by the universal terms used when John says that he "saw the 
dead, small and great, stand before God," v. 12. But, if this be true, 
then there must be either two resurrections of the bodies* of the 
saints, or one of the resurrections at least cannot be of the body. 

(c.) Especially is it not taught that the resurrection to judgment 
is confined to the wicked, nor that the first resurrection is of the 
bodies of all the saints; because along with the books "which were 
opened," "another book was opened, which is the book of life; and 
the dead were judged out of those things, which were written in the 
books, according to their works," v. 13; "and whosoever was not 
found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire," v. 15. 
This language implies that, among those then raised and judged, there 
were some whose names were written in the book of life. Con- 
sequently, reference must here be made to the general resurrection 



481 Abstract of Theology. 

and judgment, taught elsewhere as contemporaneous, and the "first 
resurrection cannot be that of the body; or only some of the saints 
partake of the first resurrection ; or there must be two resurrections 
of the bodies of the saints. The first of these is the only interpreta- 
tion that accords with what is elsewhere taught. 

(4.) The interpretation of this passage which makes it harmonious 
with all other Scripture is, 

(a.) That the first resurrection is the spiritual resurrection of the 
soul from the death of sin, of which the Scriptures elsewhere speak 
so plainly as being a passage from death unto life. [See John 5:24-26 ; 
Rom. 6:2-7; Eph. 2:1.5; 5=14; Phil. 3:10.11 ; Col. 2:12.13 ; Uohn 
3:14; 5=11.12.] 

(b.) That the second death, which has no power over those which 
have part in the first resurrection, constitutes the punishment of those 
condemned at the judgment day, which consists in their being cast, 
both body and soul, into the lake of fire. 

(c.) The thousand years of the binding of Satan is a period of 
time, of unknown, perhaps of indefinite length, possibly from the time 
of Christ's conquest of Satan, in his death, resurrection, and ascen- 
sion, or possibly from some other period, even perhaps of a later 
epoch in the history of Christianity, during which Satan is restrained 
from the exercise of the power he might otherwise put forth against 
man ; the thousand years terminating at some time prior to the day 
of Christ's second coming ; at which time Satan shall be loosed to 
comsummate his evil deeds by such assaults upon the saints as shall 
bring down the final vengeance of God at the appearing of Christ in 
glory. 

(d.) The judgment and the resurrection, in vv. 12.13, are general, 
and are those of the last day which immediately follow the coming of 
Christ, 



Abstract of Theology. 482 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE XLI 



THE FINAL JUDGMENT. 

The partial processes of God's judgments are not only constantly 
occuring, but are often distinctly manifested. Hence many expres- 
sions of Scripture, in which His judgments are spoken of, have no 
certain reference, and others, no reference at all, to the final judgment 
of all men. But, in numerous other places, such a judgment is made 
known. We are taught the appointment of a time, when there will 
be a public, general judgment of all the righteous, and the wicked. 

I. A SPECIAL TIME APPOINTED FOR IT. 

It is expressly declared that "He hath appointed a day, in the which 
He will judge the world in righteousness." Acts 17=31. The numer- 
ous designations of the day of the coming of Christ, and of his judg- 
ment of men, were pointed out in the preceding lecture. Among 
those peculiar to the judgment are "the day of judgment," 2. Pet. 
2 : 9 ; "the great day," Jude 6; "the great day of His wrath, Rev. 
6=17 ; "the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of 
God," Rom. 2:5 ; and "the day when God shall judge the secrets of 
men by Jesus Christ," Rom. 2=16. 

The duration of the time thus appointed cannot be determined. 
The indefinite meaning of the word "day" forbids any statement of 
even its probable length. It has been argued that, from the vast 
numbers to be judged, and the many events connected with the life 
of every man, it will comprise a long period of time. But the rapid- 
ity with which, in some conditions, the mind will run over the course 



483 Abstract of Theology. 

of a long life, in a moment of time, shows that a period of even ex- 
ceeding brevity may suffice for a full revelation and judgment of all 
persons and events. The indefiniteness of the word should, however, 
caution us against the assumption that the day must be of only a few 
hours duration. 

II. The judgment will be public and general. 

This has been denied by some who think that the judgment of each 
man occurs at death. These hold that to confine the judgment to 
that at death only, is not contrary to the real meaning of Scripture, 
which they suppose is not to be found in the literal language used, 
but in such an interpretation as will accord with the fact that the des- 
tiny of each man is fixed, and that consciously to himself, at death. 
They think that the indefiniteness of the word "day" permits a con- 
tinuous process of judgment extending over the whole period connected 
with the deaths of men. 

The chief basis of this theory is that the certainty attained at the 
death of each man, as to his position towards God, makes unnecessary 
any further judgment, because his case has thus been already judged. 
But we have very little knowledge of the amount of that certainty, 
especially in the case of the wicked. The righteous man, because of 
his presence with Christ, doubtless knows that his salvation is secure; 
but who can tell what alternate hopes and fears may constitute 
a part of the torture of the wicked in the intermediate state? But, 
even if he is also certain of his fate, there may be weighty reasons for 
a public manifestation of his position. Even "the angels that sinned," 
whose condition in this respect is certainly equally ascertained, are 
said to be "reserved unto judgment," as well as unjust men whom the 
Lord reserves "unto the day of judgment to be punished." 2 Pet. 
2:4.9. It may be that the day of judgment is appointed, in order 
that the full sentence, as to the reward or punishment of each man, 
may be uttered, when he stands clothed in the resurrection body, in 
which these are to be suffered, or enjoyed during all the future. 
Other purposes will be subsequently suggested in connection with the 
vindication of God, and the manifestation of the causes and circum- 
stances of His action; which, independently of any relation of the 
judgment to any individual man, make a public judgment day not 
unsuitable. The certainty of that publicity will appear from the 
person of the Judge. But, in addition to all other considerations, the 
Scriptures use language about the judgment day, and its events, which 



Abstract of Theology. 484 

cannot justly be interpreted, otherwise, than as teaching it to be public 
in the sight of all, and general to all, not particular to each man. 
The declarations of its universally sudden appearance, of the angels 
and the glory which shall attend the descending Judge, of the con- 
vulsions of nature, of the burning up of the world, of such a gather- 
ing of all nations as permits a separation before all into two dis- 
tinct classes, and the fact that some will rise up in special con- 
demnation of others; these, and other statements, are utterly incon- 
sistent with only a particular judgment of each at death. Especially 
is it impossible to reconcile the statement, that the resurrection of men 
will precede the final judgment, with any theory which makes this 
occur at death. All of this is independent of the further reply 
which may be urged, that no indefiniteness of the word "day" would 
permit the idea that a time, appointed within the life of mankind, 
should extend throughout the whole period of that life. It ought 
at least, to be a somewhat limited portion of the time which contains 
it. 

It is scarcely necessary to add that £his judgment will be so 
general as to include all mankind. Whatever different opinions may 
be held as to its being at death to each one, or at one special time 
to all, or that the time is longer, or shorter, or long enough to include 
the thousand years which the millenarians suppose tointervenebetween 
the judgment of the righteous, and the end of judgment in that of the 
wicked ; it is admitted by all that the judgment will be universal. 
The Scripture asserts this very plainly. Before the Judge "shall be 
gathered all nations." Matt. 25=32. "Every one of us shall give ac- 
count of himself to God." Rom. 14:12. It states that it shall even in- 
clude all the true people of God, 1 Cor. 3=12-15, and shall even be so 
universal as to embrace the angels who kept not their first estate. 
2 Pet. 2:4 ; Jude 6. 



III. The Person op the Judge. 

God alone is competent to perform this office of Judge in the great 
day. He alone has the right to judge. He alone has the necessary 
qualifications. Chief among these, is that perfect rectitude of char- 
acter, by which only can justice be exercised with due regard to the 
law, and those under it, according to strict principles of equity. 
Equally important, however, is that complete knowledge of the law, 
which leaves unknown, neither its requirements, nor its penalties, nor 



485 Abstract of Theology. 

its rewards, nor its possible relaxations. He also has that omniscience 
by which all things are known to Him, even the innermost secrets of 
men; not their actions only, but their inward thoughts, and hidden 
motives, even their natures, and the possibilities of those natures. 
This, which is essential to due judgment, can be found only in Him 
who searcheth the reins and hearts, and thus knows what is in men. 
His, too, is the infinite wisdom which can make due application of the 
law, in all its aspects, to the whole conduct, and character of those to 
be judged; and His the infinite power to execute that law, as well in 
the bestowment of its rewards, as in the infliction of its punishments. 

Hence the Scriptures speak of God as "the judge of all," Heb. 
12:23; and of His judgment, according to truth and righteousness, 
which cannot be escaped, Rom. 2:2.3.5. In the Apocalyptic vision, 
John "saw the dead, small and great, stand before God'' when the 
books were opened for judgment. Rev. 20:12.13. 

But this judgment is not by God, as God. Jesus told the Jews that 
"the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto 
the Son." John 5:22. The cause of this is that the Son is not only 
divine, but human, and that his relation to humanity endows him 
with peculiar qualifications for this office, which, like those for the 
salvation of man, could not be possessed by one only divine. Christ, 
therefore, taught his disciples that -the judge would be the "Son of 
Man," Matt, 16:27.28; 25:31-34, and declared to the Jews, that the 
Father "hath given him [His Son] authority to execute judgment also, 
because, he is the Son of Man." John 5:27. Indeed, it would seem 
that the judgment is to be exercised peculiarly by Christ as man ; 
for it is at least especially announced of him in this nature. Peter 
preached to Cornelius, concerning Jesus of Nazareth, that "he was 
ordained of God to be the judge of quick and dead." Acts 10:42. 
Paul wrote of "the day when G-od shall judge the secrets of men by 
Jesus Christ," Rom. 2:16; and encouraged the Corinthians by declar- 
ing that "we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ," 
2 Cor. 5:10, and, on Mars' Hill, announced that God had "appointed 
a day in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by that 
man whom He hath ordained." Acts 17=31. 

We cannot hope to understand all the reasons for this appointment 
of Christ, as Son of Man, to the judgment of all. They are connected, 
in part, with the position of King, and Lord, to which he has been 
assigned for the complete triumph of His kingdom, and the manifest- 



Abstract of Theology. 486 

ation of God's power and grace. They are also doubtless associated 
with the relation which, as man, he occupies to mankind, and espec- 
ially to the church of "first born ones." But it is certain that, by the 
connection of the office of judge with Christ as man, is removed 
every obstacle in the w T ay of a public, visible judgment. Since it is 
the Son of God who is the Son of Man, all that makes it necessary 
that God be the judge is found in him. Bat as man, the judge is no 
longer the invisible God, who can only be seen in His works of Crea- 
tion, and Providence; but God in Christ, the Godman, in his visible 
material form, who, therefore, can be manifested before the eyes of 
all, in a judgment which is, not simply general, as inclusive of all, but 
public, as openly manifested before all. It appears, therefore, that the 
person of the judge adds another reason to those heretofore men- 
tioned why any judgment which occurs at death will be supplemented 
by, and consummated in, the final judgment of the last day. 



IV. The Purposes of this Public Judgment. 

Still further proof of the same fact, will appear from some, at least, 
of the purposes of this public judgment. 

1. In the purpose fulfilled by the revelation of it to men in this 
life. The conviction of such a judgment to come produces a decided 
influence for good upon the conduct of men in this life. Doubtless is 
it on this account that it is taught so plainly, and so frequently, and 
in so many ways, that none should fail to be impressed with the cer- 
tainty of its occurrence. This would, indeed, in no small degree, be 
accomplished by the knowledge of a private, and individual judgment 
at the hour of death. But it is manifest that this effect is greatly 
enhanced by the terrors, and solemnities, with which the Bible clothes 
the scenes of that day. That its publicity is in itself fearful, is evi- 
dent from the extent with which even those shrink from a revelation 
of their sins, w T ho, as believers in Jesus, confidently hope for a favour- 
able sentence from God. The question so frequently asked whether 
the sins, as well as the good works, of God's people will then be 
revealed is the fruit of this apprehension. 

It is probable, however, that the influence of the expectation of this 
judgment is unimportant, as compared with the purposes connected 
with its actual occurrence. These are to be found in the manifesta- 
tions of God, and Christ, and of men in that great day. 



487 Abstract of Theology. 

2. The purposes that appear in connection with the day itself. 

(I.) As to God, 

(a.) It will furnish a worthy arena for the display of the attributes 
of God. A continuous purpose of God, in connection with His intel- 
ligent creatures, has been to make known to them the glory of His 
character. This is assigned as a reason even of His spiritual quick- 
ening of His people together with Christ. Eph. 2.4-7. Now, no 
mention can be made of any one of His attributes, which He has 
thus far revealed, which will not, at the judgment day, be signally 
displayed. This will be especially true of His vindicatory justice 
the perfection of which has been, in some degree, dimmed, while, 
because of His forbearance and grace, He has delayed the due pun- 
ishment of sin. Hence, this day is called "the great day of His 
wrath," Rev. 6=17, and "ihe day of wrath and revelation of the right- 
eous judgment of God/' Rom. 2:5. Yet, how signally will then, also, 
appear the wisdom of His purpose, the truth and faithfulness of His 
promises, His power to accomplish His will, His universal benevolence, 
His sacrificing love, His unbounded mercy, His delivering power, His 
conquering grace, and, not to attempt to enumerate further, every- 
thing that can be imagined as constituting that holiness which, in one 
word, embraces all moral perfection. 

(b.) The wisdom and equity of God, in His providential, and gra- 
cious dealings with men, will then, also, be apparent. These often 
give rise to perplexity, even in those who most firmly believe in God 
as One Who does all things justly, and well. In this life men are 
called to exercise faith in God in all these matters. That faith will 
be vindicated by the manifestations at that time both of His character 
and acts. The inequalities of this life, and the prosperity of the 
wicked, and the adversity of the righteous, will then be not only 
equalized, but all will clearly see the wisdom, justice, and goodness 
of God, in giving them a place here in His providential government. 
It is more than probable that, in the full exhibition of all His pur- 
poses in Creation, and Grace, that insoluble problem of this life, — the 
presence of sin, in a world created, and governed by an Almighty, 
and Holy God, — will become a manifestation of unspeakable glory in 
God. Then, too, will appear, even more plainly than now, the right- 
eousness of. His choice of some to salvation, and condemnation of 
others for sin; and, also, the full responsibility of men for every sin, 
even when their circumstances, and previous action have rendered cer- 
tain the things which they will do. Then, too, will be seen such suf- 



Abstract of Theology. 488 

cieccy, in each man, of the light possessed, if he had walked therein, 
and of his power for good, if he had exercised it, as makes him guilty 
in the* sight of God, and worthy of the punishment which He will 

inflict. 

(2.) As to Christ. 

But it is not simply the revelation of God; but of God in Christ. 

(a.) In that wonderful combination by which the created spirit, 
and even created matter of human nature, were, through the making 
flesh of the divine word, John 1:14, enabled to do that work which 
neither man, nor God could separately do. Where, but on the 
throne of judgment, could this personage be seen by any except those 
who are made partakers of his glory. How fit is his appearance to 
fill with anguish those who have rejected him, and with exultation, 
and praise all those who have trusted in him. He appears not only 
as Judge, but as King, and Lord, also, whose dominion as Lord is now 
shown to be universal, and whose kingship, in the hearts of his people, 
he now rewards by welcoming them to entrance into his joy, and par- 
ticipation in his glory. 

(b ) The glory of Christ's work will also then appear. 

In its displays of the Divine attributes; of truth, in the fulfilment 
in him of the threatened curse of sin for all those saved by him ; of 
inexorable justice, which requires that honouring of the law, not only 
in obedience, but also in penalty, exacted even from the Son of God, 
from him that is the fellow of Jehovah; and of love and mercy, 
which demand to be exercised even at the cost of the most fearful 
sacrifice. Preeminently will the glory of that w r ork be seen in 
the harmony displayed in the exercise of these attributes; of justice 
in a way of mercy and love; of each of these in a way of justice, and 
of all of them in a way of holiness and truth. The judgment 
clay will clearly exhibit these perfections, and their harmony, to all 
the intelligences of God. 

The glory of that work will also be seen in the manifested conquest 
of Satan. For the accomplishment of the purposes of God, he has 
long been permitted to exercise power and malignity. It will, at the 
judgment day, appear that it was always done by the sufferance of 
God, Who chose not to conquer, and punish him, and his angels, except 
through the Son of Man. The fact that this victory over him has not 
been one of divine power, but has been wrought out by the Son of God 
in his human nature, renders the defeat of Satan more signal and more 
humiliating to him. It is a complete avengement of the temptation 
of the first Adam. 



489 Abstract of Theology. 

The delivering power from sin shown in the. work of Christ will also 
exhibit its glory in a peculiar manner. 

We can imagine an angel willing to undertake the conquest of Sa- 
tan at the command of God. Bat, here was work which no angel would 
have attempted, nor even had any hope of accomplishing. . There 
were many problems, in connection with it, which could not be solved. 
How is the penalty incurred, to be endured, or to be escaped? HoW 
is the righteousness demanded, to be fulfilled, now that man has be- 
come a sinner? How can sin be eradicated, and an unholy nature be 
restored to its purity, and original righteousness? How is another to 
secure these things in men ? And, if not secured in them, how can the 
sin of a sinner, both in action and in condition be hidden from God? 
How can God be just, and yet justify the ungodly? 

Christ has solved all these problems, and more than done all the 
work which was needed. The sinner, united by faith to Christ, has 
now an assured safety, an unfailing righteousness, a more than suffi- 
cient satisfaction, a covert utterly impenetrable by the wrath or jus- 
tice of God; and will stand before the judgment seat of Christ, in the 
presence of men and angels, to manifest His Saviour's power in eradi- 
cating sin, by the good works wrought out by his disciple in mortal 
flesh, even under the higher law of Christian duty. 

(3.) As to man. 

With respect to man especially, the purposes of the judgment day 
make it fit that it should be general, and public. 

(a.) Because then will be revealed the character and acts of men. 

It is set forth as a day when "every one of us shall give account of 
himself to God," Rom ; 14=10, which shall comprise "every idle word 
that men shall speak." Matt. 12:35. This is to be at that time "when 
God shall judge the secrets of men." Rom. 2:16. The object of this 
trial is not to ascertain what men have done, but to make manifest to 
those who are judged, as well as to all others, the things which are 
already known to God. To this end, even sins unknown to the offend- 
ers, and good deeds forgotten by the righteous, will be brought to 
light. Matt. 25:31-46. We are told that the Lord "will both 
bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest 
the counsels of the hearts: and then shall each man have his praise 
from God." 1 Cor. 4=5. [Canterbury Revision] 

(b.) Because then will judgment be made as to each individual. 

For this cause is it that "we must all appear before the judgment 
seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his 



Abstract of Theology. 490 

body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." 
2 Cor. 5:10 ; Rom. 14=10. The very name of the day shows the object 
of its appointment, and the nature of the transactions in this direc- 
tion, which will then occur. The descriptions of the judgment day, 
however figurative they may be supposed to be, mark this as an un- 
doubted teaching of God's word. The wicked are condemned, because 
both of character and conduct. How this may be, can easily be under- 
stood. But the righteous are accepted, und rewarded, upon the same 
grounds. The reason of this is not so apparent. It doubtless is based 
upon the meritorious work of Christ, through which, by faith, they 
have been justified by God even in this life. But the references to 
their own personal acts, show, also, a personal justification in that 
great day. This is the justification by works, seen in them even while 
on earth. It is the manifestation of the life giving principle imparted 
to them on earth in regeneration, and exhibited by them during the 
processes of sanctification. The good works are the fruits of that vital 
union with Christ, by which "the life also of Jesus" is "made manifest 
in our mortal flesh." 2 Cor. 4:10; cf. Gal. 2:20, and Rom. 8:1-4. 

In the judgment, unto which men will thus be brought in the last 
day, there will be account taken of the light and knowledge which 
they have possessed. The Heathen will be judged by a different law 
from that which will be applied to those who have had the light of 
revelation. Paul plainly teaches that the former have a law under 
which they live, Rom. 2=14.15, in want of conformity to, and violation 
of which, they are ''worthy of death," Rom. 1:32; and that they are 
judged only by the law which they have. Rom. 2=12. Christ taught 
the same truth, generally, as applied to all ihe various degrees of 
knowledge, when he spoke of the servants, to be beaten with few, or 
many stripes according to their knowledge of their Lord's will. Luke 
12:47.48. He also taught it especially, in comparing the degrees of 
guilt, and condemnation of those who enjoy the knowledge of the 
gospel, and those who lived before its proclamation. Matt. 12:41.42 ; 
Luke 11:29-32. cf. John 12:47.48. 

(c.) That the judgment is public and general is seen in what is 
said of the public bestowment of rewards and punishments. 

The nature of these will be subsequently considered. What is now 
referred to is only the publicity of their bestowment. 

The language here may perhaps be figurative; but must mean some- 
thing; and can mean no less than the publicity of the awards Christ 
will give. No private judgment at death would account for the 



491 Abstract of Theology. 

statements, that all are to be gathered before Christ, and are to be 
separated by him into those on the right hand, and those on the 
left, Matt. 25:32.33; nor for the declaration that, "in the end of 
this world, "the Son of Man shall send forth his angels, and they shall 
gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do 
iniquity," Matt. 13:41, nor for that farther teaching in v. 49, that 
"the angels shall come forth and sever the wicked from among the 
just." 



VI. The Place of the Final Judgment. 

It is evident from what we have already seen, that the judgment 
scenes will occupy some place in the universe of God. Christ is to 
appear as the Son of Man, and, therefore, clothed in the body of 
his human nature, although that body will then have been glorified. 
The bodies of men, both of the righteous and the wicked, will be 
previously raised, so that they shall be judged in the body for the 
deeds done in the body. The bodies then, both of the Lord, and of 
all men, will not only occupy space; but will so occupy it as to be 
mutually recognized as being in space. 

The place may also be believed to be in some connection with our 
present Earth. It is fit that this, which has been the scene of all the 
events which will culminate in the judgment day, shall also be the 
place of that final trial. It is natural to suppose that, as the first 
coming of the Lord was to this earth, to bear sin for the redemption 
of man; so his second coming in triumph, without sin unto salvation, 
will be to that part of the universe which has been thus signally dis- 
tinguished as the theatre of God's most gracious work. The state- 
ments of the Scriptures are indeed meagre, but they say nothing 
which may not be interpreted in perfect consistency with this opinion. 
Yet, after all, the conclusion that the trial will be in connection with 
this earth, is so much a matter of inference only, as not to forbid that 
it may be at some other point in the universe. All that we are 
definitely told, is that the saints "shall be caught up" * * "in the 
clouds to meet the Lord," 1 Thess. 4:17, and that "the heavens shall 
pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent 
heat, the earth also, and the works that are therein shall be burned up." 
2 Pet. 3:10. But, while this does not deny, it does not necessarily teach 
the destruction of the whole universe. The catastrophe may be lim- 
ited to this earth, and its atmosphere, and yet all the phenomena 



Abstract op Theology. 492 

mentioned may occur. We also know that combustion of matter is 
not its destruction, but only a change in its form. This accords with 
the prediction of a- new heavens, and a new earth, 2 Pet. 3:13, and 
with those expressions which refer to it as a "restitution of all things," 
Acts 3:21, [Canterbury Revision is "restoration of all things,"] and 
teach "that the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage 
of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God." 
Rom. 8:21. [Canterbury Revision]. But, whether the earth alone is 
to be purified by fire, or, as seems not so probable, the whole universe ; 
or whether the judgment scene is to be connected with earth, or with 
some other point in the present, or in the renewed universe, it seems 
certain that it must be in some place. The place which is most prob- 
able is in connection with the point of space now occupied by this 
earth, and either in the atmosphere above it, during or after the con- 
flagration, or on the earth itself before it shall be burned. 



Abstract of Theology. 494 



ABSTRACT OF THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE XLII 



The Final States of the Righteous, 
and the Wicked. 

In the last lecture, nothing was said specifically of the awards . 
of the judgment day. Yet is the public bestowal of these the cul- 
minating point of interest in that occasion. Judgment, without the 
expression of its results, in rewards, and punishment, would be empty 
and vain. Hence the Scriptures do not leave us ignorant of what 
sentences will be pronounced upon the righteous, and wicked, and of 
what will be the final state of each. Of necessity, these must, in 
some respects, resemble those of the intermediate state ; of which the 
condition of the righteous and wicked after judgment, will be an en- 
largement and a culmination. It is not strange, therefore, that the 
Scriptures teach more fully, and emphatically upon these subjects. 

I. The Final State of the Righteous. 

There is upon this point little dispute as to the meaning of the 
Scripture statements. As they are numerous, they will best be pre- 
sented under several classes of description. 

1. The sentence of the judgment day may be stated. 

Our Lord declared that ''then shall the king say unto them on his 
right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom pre- 
pared for you from the foundation of the world.'' Matt. 25:34. This 



495 Abstract of Theology. 

is called "life eternal" in v. 46. As this is, probably, a description of 
the nature of the blessings to be attained, rather than a declaration of 
the literal language that will then be used, other statements may here 
be added which are of the same nature. One is that given in the par- 
able of the talents, in which his lord said to him of the five talents, 
"Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over 
a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things : enter thou into 
the .joy of thy Lord." Matt. 25:21. cf. Matt. 24:47-. The righteous 
are spoken of as "wheat," and it is said that the householder at the har- 
vest time will say to the reapers, "gather the wheat into my barn," 
Matt. 13:30. Our Lord, in his explanation of this, parable, says of 
those thus represented by the wheat, "then shall the righteous shine 
forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father," v. 43. Correspond- 
ing to this language, is the declaration of Peter, that, "when the chief 
shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not 
away." 1 Pet. 5:4. There may be added, also, the promises made in 
Revelation to "him that overcometh," viz: to "eat of the tree of life, 
which is in the midst of the paradise of God," Chap. 2:7 ; "not to be 
hurt of the second death," 2:11 ; "to eat of the hidden manna," to 
receive "a white stone, and in the stone a new name written," 2:17, "to 
have power over the nations," to "rule them with a rod of iron," 2:27; 
to "be clothed in white raiment," and "walk with me (Christ) in 
white'" 3=5; to be made "a pillar in the temple of my God," hav- 
ing the name of God, and of the city of God, the new Jerusalem, 
and the new name of Christ, written upon him, 3:12; to sit with 
Christ upon his throne, 3:21; "to inherit all things," with the prom- 
ise "I will be His God, and he shall be my son." 21:7. These 
declarations, however figurative, are descriptive of the condition of 
the saints in glory, and may, therefore, be appropriately added to 
the sentence of their Lord. 

2. The future state of the righteous, is also stated, with refer- 
ence to his past condition on earth; as "salvation," Mark. 16:16; 

1 Thess. 5:9; 2 Tim. 2:10; "deliverance from every evil work," 

2 Tim. 4:18; "redemption," Rom. 8:23;. Eph. 4:30; "liberty," John 
8:36; Rom. 8=21; "rest," Heb. 4:10; Rev. 14:13; "deliverance from 
earthly sufferings, such as hunger, thirst, tears, etc.," Rev. 7=16.17; 
"night," Rev. 21:25; 22:5; "sin," Rev. 21:27. 

3. It is also described, with reference to present possessions, as 
blessedness, Matt. 25:34 ; perfect knowledge, 1 Cor. 13:12; holiness, 
1 Thess. 3:13; Rev. 21:27; glory, Rom. 8=18; 2 Cor. 4:17; 2 Tim. 



Abstract of Theology. 496 

2=10; 1 Pet. 5=4; life, Mark 8=35 ; 9:43.45.47; John 5:29 ; Rom. 
8:13 ; crown of life, James 1:12; eternal or everlasting life, Matt. 19:29 ; 
25:46; John 6:27.47.54; Rom. 2=7. 

4. Declarations are made which connect the believer with Christ, 
viz: as of his being with Christ, 1 Thess. 4:17 ; in the presence of his 
glory, Jude 24; beholding his glory, John 17=24; conformed to his 
glorious body, Phil. 3 : 21 ; exhibiting the riches of his grace, Eph. 2:7 ; 
Christ glorified in them, 2 Thess. 1:10 ; entering into the joy of their 
Lord, Matt. 25:21.23 ; reigning with Christ, 2 Tim. 2:12, etc. 

5. Statements are made about their activity in the heavenly life. 
The rest of Heaven is not a state of inactivity. This is pointed oat 
in the very passage which speaks of this rest as a peculiar blessedness: 
1 Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth : yea, 
saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours, (toil, trouble, 
sufferings, pain, weariness); for their works (deeds, works, especially 
those of necessity or duty,) [see Lexicon of Liddell and Scott,] follow 
with them." Rev. 14=13. [Canterbury Revision]. Here we are taught 
that, while they rest from onerous and painful toil, they continue to 
be actively employed. We may not know what all of these employ- 
ments shall be. They will be such as will be suited to their intellect- 
ual and moral nature and position. The statements of the book of 
Revelation give us an insight into what some of them may be. The 
servants of God are there depicted, as serving God, Rev. 7:15; 22:3 ; 
as giving praises in song, Rev. 14:2.3 ; 15:3.4 ; 19=5.6 ; as engaged in 
prayers of adoration, Rev. 6:9-13; 7:11.12; of thanksgiving, Rev. 
11:17; and in acts of humiliation, Rev. 4:10. 

6. The blessedness of the future state of the righteous, is also set 
forth in connection with the place of their abode. 

This is usually called Heaven. It is readily admitted that the word 
"heaven" is used otherwise than for the abode of God, and Christ, and 
angels, and the future dwelling place of the saints. But in numerous 
places it has only this special signification. The following selection of 
passages will suffice. Matt. 5:12.45 ; 6:20; Luke 6:23 ; 15:7; 22=43 
John 3:13; 6:38; Rom. 1:18 ; 1 Cor. 15:47 ; 2 Cor. 5:1 ; Eph, 1:10 
3:15; Phil. 3:20; 1 Thess. 1:10; 4:16; 2 Thess. 1:7 ; Heb. 9:24 
1 Pet. 1:4 ; 3:22. 

The plain teaching of these passages, and of others that might be 
mentioned, is that Heaven is a place and not merely a condition of 
happiness. 



497 Abstract of Theology. 

The same fact is justly argued from its being the abiding place of 
Christ. His human body must occupy a specified place in space. It 
has' been replied to this argument that, "since deity and humanity are 
indissolubly united in Christ's single person, it is difficult to consider 
Christ's body as limited to place, without vacating his person of its 
divinity." But this objection is made in forgetfulness of the fact that 
Christ, in his divine relation, is not limited by his human nature, 
much less by his human body. This was shown by him, while on 
earth, when, in conversation with Nicodemus, he spake of himself as 
being in Heaven, John 3=13, although his body was manifestly on 
earth. Was his ubiquity as God interfered with by his location then 
in space as man ? It was in like manner, that Christ saw Nathaniel 
under the fig tree, when he was not bodily present. John 1:48. 

No similar objection, however, can be made to an argument to the 
same effect, drawn from the bodies of the saints. Heaven cannot be 
regarded as only a state, in which they have communion with Christ 
and God, but must be accepted as the place of their abode, in their 
glorified bodies, in which they dwell with each other, and rejoice in 
the state of happiness, and glory, which is also theirs. 

We have no means of ascertaining the location of Heaven. That 
this earth, in its renewed condition, may be the future Heaven is 
favoured by Rom. 8:19-23; 2 Pet, 3=5-13, and Rev. 21=1-3. But these 
passages are entirely too indefinite and doubtful to give any certainty, 
or even very strong probability on this point. 

Heaven is spoken of in certain descriptive terms. It is called "a 
better country, that is an heavenly.'' Heb. 11=16. It is the place in 
which we shall have "a building of God, an house not made with 
hands, eternal in the heavens," 2 Cor. 5:1.2; and "a place" among the 
"many mansions" in the "Father's house;" John 14=2. It is called 
"the kingdom," Matt. 13:43; 25:34. It is possible that Heaven is 
also meant by the "Jerusalem which is above," Gal. 4:26, and "the 
new Jerusalem which cometh down out of Heaven," Rev. 3=12, 
and the holy Jerusalem, Rev. 21:10; as well as by Paradise, Luke 
23=43; 2 Cor. 12:4; Rev. 2:7, cf. Rev. 21=10-27. 

7. The blessedness of this state of the righteous is made supreme 
by the fact that it will last forever. It will never end ; it will never 
be diminished. If there be any change, it will be from its increase: 
because of better intellectual perception, and knowledge of God, and 
of divine things; because of a constantly and increasingly endearing 
communion with God in Christ; because of an increased capacity to 



Abstract of Theology. 498 

behold the glory of Christ; and because of a greater exaltation of the 
spiritual nature in the worship and service of the Lord. There is no 
reason why there may not be such increase in beings, whose natures 
can never attain the infinity of excellence, and complete fulness which 
belong only to God. 

This perpetuity of the happiness of the saints is stated in various 
ways. 

(1.) It is called "eternal life," and "everlasting life" in the 
King James version, which are translations of the same Greek 
words. They are translated "eternal life," or "life eternal" in Matt. 
25:46; Mark 10:30; John 3=15; 10:28; 12:25; 17:2; Acts 13:48 ; 
Eom. 2=7; 5:21; 6:23; 1 Tim. 6:12.19; Tit. 1=2; 3:7; 1 John 1:2; 
2:25; 5:11-13; Jude 21. They are translated "everlasting life," or 
"life everlasting" in Matt. 19=29 ; Luke 18=30; John 3:16,36; 414 ; 
5:24; 6=27: 40:47; Rom. 6=22; Gal. 6=8; 1 Tim. 1=16. The Greek 
should have been translated in all these places by the same word ; and 
the better word would have been everlasting, because only a relative 
eternity, or what is called eternity a parte post, belongs to created 
things. God alone has true eternity. [See pages 71-73]. 

(2.) It is declared to be "for ever," John 6:51.58; and "for ever 
and ever," Rev. 22:5. 

(3.) Similar expressions are also used, as "everlasting habitations," 
Luke 16:9; "eternal weight of glory," 2 Cor. 4=17; "glory in the 
church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end," Eph. 
3:21 ; "everlasting consolation," 2 Thess. 2:16; "salvation which is in 
Christ Jesus with eternal glory," 2 Tim. 2:10; "eternal salvation," 
Heb. 5:9; "eternal redemption," Heb. 9:12; eternal inheritance," 
Heb. 9:15, "eternal glory," 1 Pet. 5:10; "everlasting kingdom of 
our Lord, and Saviour Jesus Christ," 2 Pet. 1:11. 

(4.) In John 4:14 ; 8.51.52; and 10:28, it is declared oi believers 
that "they shall never thirst," "never see death," "and never perish," 
by which is taught the same everlasting condition expressed in the 
three preceding classes. Reference is made in these passages to the 
spiritual life of the soul. 

The numerous declarations of everlasting life and happiness, thus 
classified above, make certain what might have been inferred from 
the scriptural statements of the natural immortality conferred upon 
Spirit; which forbids its annihilation ; and from the security, against 
the spiritual death of the soul, arising from the gracious w T ork of 
Christ wrought out, for, and in the believer, through which he is forever 



499 . Abstract of Theology. 

delivered from the condemnation, and presence of sin, and clothed in 
the unfailing righteousness of God. The same blessing is unquestion- 
ably attained through the relation borne to Christ by the saints, as 
constituting the church of first born ones, which is his bride, Eph. 
5:23-33, and also that body, of which he is the head, which is declared to 
be "the fulness of him that filleth all in all." Eph. 1:22. The vital 
connection between Christ and his people has no elements of dissolu- 
tion, and, therefore, everlasting must be that cause of their existence 
announced by him when he said, "because I live, ye shall live also." 
John 14:19. 



II. The Final State of the Wicked. 

The judgment day is no less signally to be marked by the punish- 
ment decreed against the wicked, than by the blessings conferred upon 
the righteous. These, also, are set forth in the Bible, in fearful words 
of warning ; and should be effective for driving men to Christ for sal- 
vation, while the day of probation continues. 

1. We have here the sentence to be uttered against those who are 
still in sin. It occurs in the same chapter with that of the righteous. 
Christ tells us that "then shall he (the King) say, also, unto them on 
the left hand, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, pre- 
pared for the devil and his angels, * * * and these shall go 
away into everlasting punishment." Matt. 25:41.46. A similar sen- 
tence occurs in Luke 13:27, "I tell you, I know you not whence ye 
are ; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity." 

The different elements, included in this sentence, are also taught of 
the wicked elsewhere in the Scriptures ; some examples of which may 
be here added. 

(1.) Punishment. "He that believeth not shall be damned," 
Mark. 16:16 ; "the resurrection of damnation," John 5:29; "taking 
vengeance on them * * * who shall be punished," 1 Thess. 
1:8.9 ; "reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished," 
2 Pet. 2:9. 

. (2.) Pain : (a.) as expressed by fire. Matt, 13:42.50; 18:8.9; Mark. 
9:43-48; 2 Thess. 1:8; 2 Pet. 3:7; (b.) fire and brimstone, Rev. 14:10; 
19:20; 20:10; 21:8; (c.) flame, Luke 16:24; (d.) "their worm dieth 
not, and the fire is not quenched," Mark 9:44.46.48; cf. Luke 3:17 ; 
(e.) "tribulation and anguish," Matt. 24:21.29 ; Pom. 2:8.9. 



Abstract of Theology. 500 

(3.) Deprivation: "severed from among the just," Matt. 13:49 ; 
"outer darkness," Matt: 25:30; "thrust out from the kingdom," Luke 
13:28 ; "shall not inherit the kingdom of God," 1 Cor. 6:9 ; "no rest," 
Rev. 14=11; "blackness of darkness forever," Jude 13. 

(4) The punishment and suffering are recognized by those pun- 
ished by "weeping and wailing, and gnashing of teeth." Matt. 8 : 12; 
13:50 ;25:30 ; Luke 13:28. The Rich Man is represented as acknowl- 
edging his torments. Luke 16:24. 

2. The nature of this punishment. 

(1.) It is unwarrantable to take for granted that it will not be in part 
physical. The wicked will go from the judgment seat with the bodies 
which belong to them in their resurrection state. We know not what 
will be the nature of these bodies, and, therefore, have no right to 
affirm that they may not be capable of physical pain. That the lan- 
guage of Scripture, as to fire and brimstone, is figurative, is true. 
But men are not authorized, on that account, to deny that some phy- 
sical pain, and, that of a most excruciating, and agonizing charac- 
ter, will form a part of the agony and woe of the hereafter of the sin- 
ner. So far from men drawing comfort from any conviction they 
may have that there will not be literal fire, they should only the more 
be filled with dread, and apprehension, of some fearful condition, 
which the Scriptures here attempt to describe by terms which express 
the severest anguish men can endure in the body ; the statements 
made, evidently falling far short of telling the nature of a punishment 
which our present condition forbids that we should understand. In the 
range of animal life here on earth, we know that the higher the or- 
ganism the more keenly is it alive to suffering as well as enjoyment. 
This teaches us to expect that the bodily enjoyments of the saints 
will far surpass anything ever experienced on earth. If the resurrec- 
tion bodies of the wicked are, in any degree, higher than those of 
this world, the only result will be to make them capable of anguish 
utterly inconceivable by men in their present state. 

.(2.) The spiritual agony, then to be endured, is equally be- 
yond the possibility of present expression. We may say that it will 
necessarily consist in certain evils; but who can tell how great those 
evils will then be realized to be. Some of them may be suggested : 
as, consciousness of an unclean and unholy nature; when there is no 
way to cleanse or escape it: conviction of the nature, and ill desert of 
sin; when sinful habits have such prevalence and control that sin 
must still be committed willingly, yet with horror of what is done; 



501 Abstract of Theology. 

— indications of which are seen in men in this life, who, by debauch- 
ery, or drunkenness, are driven forward to evil even against their 
will — : remorse for past indulgencies, for neglected opportunities, for 
rejections of Christ; — especially as then will be seen how nigh unto 
each one had come the kingdom and grace of God — : knowledge of 
banishment perpetually from the presence of Christ, and deprivation 
of the favour and love of God : — these, and evils like unto them, with 
the mutual reproaches of the damned, for the influences of each other, 
by which such evil has come, will make a Hell compared with which, 
all the torture men have ever known in this life will be looked back 
to, as though it were Heaven itself. 

3. The place of this punishment. 

There are three words used in Scripture which are translated "Hell" 
in the King James version, viz: Hades, Tartarus, and Gehenna. 
Hades is simply transferred in the Canterbury Revision. It is used 
for the general place of departed -spirits, both righteous and wicked. 
In no place is punishment, or torment, associated with it, except in 
Luke 16=23, in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. This is to 
be explained, in accordance with the use of the word in all other pas- 
sages, by the fact that, as Hades contains the wicked, as well as the 
righteous, and as the wicked there are in a state of suffering, so the 
rich man in Hades was tormented, while Lazarus who was in the 
same general abode, was enjoying the blessed state expressed by his 
being in Abraham's bosom. 

The word Tartarus appears only as a participle (t.artarosas) of the 
verb (tartaroo), which means to cast down to Tartarus. The place in 
which it is found is 2 Pet. 2=4, which the Canterbury Revision trans- 
lates "For if God spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them 
down to hell, and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved 
unto judgment." The Revisors point out in the margin that the word 
Hell is expressed in the Greek by Tartarus. This passage evidently 
has respect to the condition of these angels before the judgment day. 

The places in which Gehenna occurs are Matt, 5:22.29.30 ; 10:28; 
18:9 ; 23:15.33 ; Mark 9:43.45.47 ; Luke 12:5, and James 3:6. All of 
them refer to torture and punishment hereafter. This is distinctly 
associated with the punishment of the judgment day, in Mark 18:9, 
by the preceding verse where "eternal fire" is used as the equivalent 
term to Gehenna; in Matthew 23:33, where Christ asks the Scribes 
and Pharisees, "How shalFye escape the damnation of Hell (Gehenna);" 
in Mark 9:43, where^the language is "to go into Hell (Gehenna), the 



Abstract of Theology. 502 

unquenchable fire," [Canterbury Revision,] and in Luke 12:5, in which 
Christ says, "Fear Him which, after He hath killed, hath power to cast 
into Hell (Gehenna)." 

It has not been inaptly remarked that Gehenna is used by Christ 
himself in all of the twelve passages in which it occurs in the New 
Testament, except James 3:6. 

4. The duration of this punishment. 

The New Testament teaching upon this subject is that it will endure 
throughout all the infinite future. This is expressed in various ways. 

(1.) By the term eis ton aiona, "forever." 

This occurs about thirty times in the New Testament. An earnest 
and learned opponent of the doctrine of eternal punishment, (Oxen- 
ham, in "What is Truth as to Everlasting Punishment?" p. 101), has 
been able to point out only one place in the New Testament where he 
thinks the meaning of "forever" cannot be applicable to this form of 
words. It is the language of Paul in 1 Cor. 8:13, translated in the King 
James version, "I will eat no flesh while the world standeth." But "I will 
eat no flesh forever" is just as suitable an idea, as that substituted in 
the translation for the .true meaning of this phrase. For any other 
use, Oxenham is obliged to refer to the Septuagint, where he claims 
that it is used of "duration, throughout the age of the Mosaic dis- 
pensation," "of the world," "of a family," and "of the political con- 
dition of slavery." But this application accords with that very deriv- 
ation, made by the best lexicographers, which makes aion equivalent 
to the Latin aevum, but, which, also, is the basis of the very idea of 
eternity which- is the sole meaning of eis ton aiona in the later Hel- 
lenistic Greek of the New Testament. 

This term is applied in two places only to the punishment of the 
wicked, viz: 2 Pet. 2:17-, and Jude 13. 

(2.) Other similar expressions to the first are used where plural 
forms of aion appear, as eis aionas aionon ; eis tous aionas ton aionon. 
"forever and ever" in Rev. 19:3 and 20:10. The plural forms only 
intensify, and certainly do not diminish the duration. 

(3.) The word aionios. This word occurs about seventy times in 
the New Testament, and invariably in the sense of eternal or ever- 
lasting duration. Just as the English word "eternal" refers to the true 
eternity, which is in God alone, so is this word applied to God in 
Rom. 16:26; and to the Holy Spirit in Heb. 9:14. In like manner, as 
we inadequately divide eternity into eternity a parte post, and eternity 
a parte ante, meaning by each indefinite, unlimited, and illimitable 



503 Abstract of Theology. 

duration in the past, or in the future, from the present, or some other 
fixed period of time ; as from the time of Christ's appearance on earth ; 
so, this word is used for each of these two kinds of eternity. It has 
no other application in the New Testament than to one or another of 
these three forms of eternity. As applied to the endless life of the 
righteous, or wicked, it signifies the future eternity, or eternity a 
parte post. 

Those who oppose the doctrine of eternal punishment, suppose that 
there are many ages, or periods, of the existence of man, and they at- 
tempt to explain the language used accordingly. But, while the phrases 
upon which this opinion is based, might, as a matter of language, mean 
this, there is no evidence from Scripture of the existence of any such 
several periods. The only distinction clearly made, is that between 
the di'spensation prior to the time of Christ, and that since his day ; 
the Scriptures evidently regarding that as the central point, unto 
which all things tended in the past, and from which, all things pro- 
ceed in the future. 



It is not to be overlooked, that these words, which express the eter- 
nity of the punishment of the wicked, are those by which the 
eternal life of the righteous is also made known. As that is unend- 
ing in its happiness, so this is in its punishment, and suffering. These 
words express as strongly, as the Greek language can, the everlasting 
duration of the destiny assigned to each at the judgment day. 

This is questioned by Oxenham, who says, p. 114, "There are sev- 
eral ways, in which Almighty God could have expressed this endlessness 
of future punishment, if He desired to tell us that it would be endless ; 
ways, about the meaning of which there could be no mistake ; ways, in 
which, in Holy Scripture, He has expressed the endlessness of things 
which will be endless: e. g. of his own dominion, God declared by the 
prophet Daniel that it was 'an everlasting dominion, which shall not 
pass away, and His Kingdom that which shall not be destroyed, 
Dan. 7:14. Of the endless life of the blessed, our Lord declared, Luke 
20:36, neither can they die any more. By the angel Gabriel, Luke 
1:33, God announced, that of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, there 
shall be no end. Where is any such language used of the Kingdom 
of Darkness, or of future punishment, or of the wicked? Where is 
said of the lost, that they can live no more Whe.re k of future 
punishment, that of it there shall be no end?' " 



Abstract of Theology. 504 

To this it may be replied, 

(a.) That, if no similar instances can be given relative to future 
punishment, and the wicked, so far as any of these, expressions are 
used of the righteous, they are explanatory of the kind of eternity 
ascribed to their happiness; and, as this is described by the same 
words as that of the misery of the wicked, in all other cases, these 
instances teach us the meaning of these common words, when applied 
to the wicked, by thus explaining them when applied to the righteous. 

(b.) That the same ingenuity, and quibbling, which attempts to 
deprive the expressions used of their true meaning, would be applied 
in like manner to such terms as these. 

If a similar passage to that from Daniel could be presented, we 
should immediately have pointed out to us, that it was to the Son of 
Man that the kingdom was given, and that, of this very kingdom 
which "shall not pass away,'" we are told that "then cometh the 
end when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God ; even the 
Father; when He shall have put down all rule, and all authority 
and power." 1 Cor. 15:24. 

(c.) But there are like instances which may be adduced. In Luke 
20:36, "neither can they die any more," the impossibility of dying is 
expressed by li oude dunantai." Corresponding to this is the language 
used by our Lord to the Pharisees in John 9:21, "Ye shall seek me, 
and shall die in your sin : whither I go ye cannot come' (ou dunasthe 
elthein). 

Parallel to the expression in Luke 1:33, "there shall be no end," 
ouk estai telos, is "the endless genealogies," (genealogiais aperantois) 
in 1 Tim. 1:4; for, although different words are used to express endless- 
ness in the Greek, they are of equal force. Oxenham is himself au- 
thority for the strong meaning of aperantois, for he refers to "apeiron 
(a and peras)" from which aperantos is likewise formed, as mean- 
ing "without a limit," and says of it and others "by these and by sev- 
eral other words and expressions of unmistakable meaning, Almighty 
God could have expressed the endlessness of future punishment, if He 
had desired to do so," p. 115. ¥et, had he used this word, or others 
of the same form, how quickly should we have been referred 
to the endless genealogies as exegetical of them. 

With respect to the two final questions of Mr. Oxenham, the pas- 
sage in 1 Cor. 6:9, may be suggested as one that fully meets them. 
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of 
God," (see also verse 10). The same expression occurs in Gal. 5:21. 



505 Absteact of Theology. 

The insincerity with which such questions are asked is seen in the fact 
that, when these and similar passages are presented, these opponents 
resort to the assumption that the unrighteous will not always be un- 
righteous, and that only so long as unrighteous shall they not inherit ; 
but that they may do so after their unrighteousness has passed away # 
They will attempt to maintain the possibility of this in the face of 
such a passage as Rev. 22:11, "He that is unrighteous, let him do un- 
righteousness still : and he that is filthy, let him be made filthy still." 
[Canterbury Revision]. 

(4.) Here may properly be added three other expressions as to the 
unending nature of the punishment of the wicked. 

(a.) Aidios : which appears in the "eternal Godhead" of Rom. 1:20, 
and in the everlasting chains of the angels which kept not their first 
estate in Jude 6. As the wicked are sentenced to the "everlasting 
fire prepared for the devil and his angels," this passage has probable 
reference to the duration of the punishment of both devils and wicked 
men. 

(b ) Asbestos, (unquenchable fire). Oxenham claims that all that 
is involved in this word is that the fire "is unquenched," and that the 
language does not forbid a time when it may be quenched. This word 
occurs in three undisputed places in Scripture, Matt. 3:13 ; Mark 9:43, 
and Luke 3:17, and in three others, Mark 9:44.45.46, which Westcott 
and Hort omit from their text, and which are also omitted in the Can- 
terbury Revision. Mark 9:48 has a different form of the same word. 
Oxenham objects to the translation "unquenchable," and insists upon the 
meaning "is unquenched" ; but the duration of the punishment, and 
the propriety of the translation "unquenchable" is shown by the words, 
"where their worm dieth not," used in connection with the expression 
in verse 48. 

(c.) Ou teleutai, "does not end," "ceases not," is declared of the 
worm in Mark 9:48. Teleutai corresponds exactly in meaning, as well 
as in root, with the telos in the ouk estai telos in Luke 1:33, which 
Oxenham regarded as so strongly expressive of endlessness, as to chal- 
lenge the finding of such a term applied to the future punishment of 
the wicked. 

5. Objections and opposing theories. 

The objections to this doctrine of eternal punishment, and the op- 
posing theories, may be briefly stated and replied to. 



Abstract of Theology. 506 

First, the objections. 

(1.) It is objected, that the punishment is disproportioned to the 
sin. But, 

(a) No one but God can know what is the real desert of sin, and 
if He has plainly taught us, that it deserves eternal punishment, we 
.may be sure, that the infliction of such punishment must be right, and 
in accordance with what it merits. The question is simply, What 
does God say ? and upon this point He has taught us plainly, 

(b.) The objection is based upon the idea that all the sin that will be 
punished is that committed in this life. It is true that men will be only 
judged for the deeds done in the body. But these will not constitute 
all the sins which will be punished hereafter. A part of the penalty 
of the sins, of this life, is such a corrupted nature, as will make men 
sin in the life to come. The Scriptures teach, that there will be sin- 
ful acts and habits after death. Rev. 22:11. [See Canterbury Revi- 
sion]. Ever continuing sin will deserve ever continuing punishment. 
If sin is worthy of any punishment at all, and if, at every moment sin 
is committed, punishment may be forever, without assuming that any 
one or more sins will cause everlasting infliction. 

(c.) Mark 3:29 tells* of an eternal sin. [See Canterbury Revision, 
and the Greek text of Westcott and Hort]. 

(d.) The objection supposes, that the punishment of the damned 
is something actively inflicted by God, and not the working out, and 
result of the natures of men. It will doubtless consist, in great part, 
in their sinful, and corrupt natures, which will still work out sin, and thus 
continue to separate irom the favour, and complacent love of God. 
The only probable exception will be "remorse," arising from the memory 
of past sins, and neglected opportunities; and these are not active in- 
flictions of God, but the results of former sin. 

(2.) It is said, that God is too merciful to inflict everlasting punish- 
ment. But, 

(a.) God, in declaring that He will inflict it, thus declares that He 
is not too merciful to do so. 

(b.) God teaches us that, while He takes no delight in such punish- 
ment, it is demanded by justice, which is as unbounded an attribute 
of His nature as mercy. 

(c.) God has given signal exhibitions in His providential gov- 
ernment, that He can, and will punish severely. As a moral 
Governor His punishment must be proportioned to the offense. His 
merciful disposition cannot interfere with His righteous action. Even 



507 Abstract of Theology. 

in the salvation of those saved through Christ, it is necessary that 
He should be just in justifying the believer in Jesus. 

(3.) It is claimed that provision has been made in Christ for the 
certain salvation of all men. 

If this be so, there is no difficulty in God's justice in the bestow- 
ment of salvation. But, that such is not the case is manifested, 

(a.) By the fact that salvation is offered only on the condition of 
repentance, and faith. None, therefore, can have part in that salva- 
tion except those who fulfil this condition. 

(b.) Regeneration is declared to be essential to entrance into the 
kingdom of Christ. Those who are not thus born again can, therefore, 
have no part in his salvation. 

(c.) Not only is holiness declared to be essential to admission to 
Heaven, but it is foretold, expressly, that certain classes of unholy 
men, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire, and 
brimstone; and, at the head of the list given, are "the fearful and un- 
believing." Rev. 22:8. 

(d.) While the value of Christ's work is indeed ample for all, we 
are taught that its benefits are not bestowed upon all. There are 
special sins mentioned which will exclude those who commit them 
irom all hope of salvation. Matt. 12:31 ; Luke 12:10; Heb. 6:4-6, 
cf. verse 9 ; 10:26.27, cf. verses 28-31. But the assertions made about 
the certain punishment of those who commit these particular sins, 
are not stronger than the declarations of the certain damnation of all 
the finally impenitent and unbelieving. 

(4.) Inasmuch, as it is asserted in 1 Tim. 2:3.4, that "God our Sa- 
viour * * * will have all men to be saved, and to come to the 
knowledge of the truth ;" it is even claimed, that it is the purpose of 
God to save all. 

That tlie word "thelei" translated "will have," often involves pur- 
pose, or determination on the part of God, is readily admitted, as well 
as that, if it means this here, all men will be saved according to that 
purpose. But such purpose cannot be concluded from this passage 
alone, unless it accords with what is elsewhere taught; much less, when 
it is in direct opposition to the general tenor of the Bible, as well as 
to distinct statements to the contrary. The reason for this is that 
this word does not always mean "will," in the sense of purpose, but 
sometimes also in that of a mere "wish." There are many cases in 
Scripture, in which God is said to wish what, not only He does not 
purpose to accomplish, but what actually fails to take place. 



Abstract of Theology. 508 

There are numerous examples in which this word has only this 
meaning of "wish": thus as used in general of men only, Matt. 7 12; 
12:38; 15:28; of Christ, Matt. 23:37 ; Mark 14=36; Luke 13:34; John 
17:24; and of God, 1 Cor. 15:38; Heb. 10=5.8. Thelema, the corres- 
ponding noun is used as expressive simply of this "wish" of God in 
Mark 3:35; Rom. 2=18; Eph. 6:6; and in other places. 

(5.) It is further objected that God must forgive those who are 
truly penitent, and that the wicked, in the full knowledge of God, 
and sin, afforded by the next world, must certainly repent. 

(a.) This objection arises from a misconception of the nature of 
the repentance acceptable to God. It is not mere sorrow for sin ; es- 
pecially for its effects, of which probably Hell will be full ; it is 
reformation of character, turning away from sin, and seeking holiness. 
Sorrow accompanies it, but does not constitute it. It is not awakened 
by the painful effects of sin, but by conviction of its evil nature. How 
can such sorrow arise in those who have learned to love sin? or such 
reformation, in those who are confirmed in habits of sin? Remorse 
for the past, loathings of their then condition, even desires to over- 
come the power which enchains them, may abundantly exist, but, as 
often occurs in this life, where passion, and appetite get .the mastery 
of men, pleasure will be taken in sin, and evil appetites indulged, 
even when it is hated with all the bitterness of a despairing soul. 

On the other hand, w T hat is the teaching of Scripture as to God's, 
readiness to accept the penitent after the day of opportunity has 
passed away? What does the case of Esau teach, Heb. 12=16.17? 
What is meant to be taught by the language of Wisdom, Prov. 1=24-28 ? 
Did Christ accept, did God forgive the wretched, sorrowing, remorse- 
ful Judas? or was his penitence permitted to plunge him into the fur- 
ther sin of suicide? Even here on earth, where the day of probation 
ordinarily ends only in death, such rejection of such sorrow for sin is 
possible. Who shall dare to say that it is impossible in the hereafter? 
"For, if they do these things in the green tree, what shall be done in 
the dry?" Luke 23:31. [Canterbury Revision]. 

(b.) "Punishment appears to have very little, if any, tendency, to 
work reformation in offenders. It often deters from crime, but it 
rarely brings one to genuine repentance," 

(c.) "During the middle state, if at any time after this life, a 
return to God might be expected ; yet the language of Scripture does 
not permit us to expect it then." Hovey's Manual of Sys. Theol., p. 
362. 



509 Abstract of Theology. 

(d.) The experience of this life shows that, for any violation, even 
of physical law, the penalty attached to it must be endured, and, that 
no sorrow for what has been done, nor determination to avoid such 
action in the future, will release from the evil which follows. Why 
should it be supposed that, after the judgment, law will be less inex- 
orable than now, or that penitence and reformation will then, of them- 
selves, avail any more than they do now? Even in this life, repent- 
ance and faith have no value, nor power in themselves, but are only 
effective as conditions upon which the salvation in Christ is offered. 
But the Bible carefully warns men that this offer, on these conditions, 
is only made in this life. To suppose it possible in the hereafter, re- 
quires not only the possibility of repentance and faith, then, but also 
that salvation through Christ will then be still attainable. This 
can only be upon the supposition that men will have a future proba- 
tion, and the same, or other means of grace, than those here afforded. 

(6.) In further objection, therefore, it is assumed that another pro- 
bation will then be enjoyed. The strongest form in which this objection 
is urged, is that, inasmuch as despite the positive threatenings of God to 
our first parents that they should die, He had purposed to provide re- 
demption for at least a part of mankind, therefore, despite the pos- 
itive statements as to the future condemnation and punishment of the 
wicked, there may still be mercy in store, and final deliverance from 
the presence and taint of sin, as well as its punishment. 

The replies afforded to this are obvious. 

(a.) The case quoted, affords a warning to those who teach con- 
trary to what God teaches. Our first parents were even then , before their 
sin, assured that the threatened sentence would not be executed. But 
this came from Satan, who is declared by Christ to be "a liar and the 
father thereof." John 8=44. [Canterbury Revision]. Those, who, 
upon any other authority than God, call in question any statement 
which He makes, should feel that they do it at the peril of their own 
souls, and that of those whom they teach. Matt. 15:8.9.13.14; 
23=13.15.16 ; Luke 6=39. Those who deny a doctrine which they 
know is taught in God's word, or attempt by any subterfuge, or mere 
supposition, to induce others to reject it, act precisely the part of Sa- 
tan in the transaction of the fall. 

(b.) The penalty which God threatened has actually been inflicted 
upon all mankind. Even the death of the body has only thus far 
been escaped by two of the race. But spiritual death, the death of 
the soul, manifestly the especial death of the curse, for this alone was 



Abstract of Theology. 510 

inflicted upon the day of transgression, has, in the corrupted and 
sinful nature, become the so called "natural" state of mankind. The 
objection evidently supposes that eternal death was also threatened 
against Adam. But this is not true. It becomes a part of the 
penalty, only because it is the consequence of moral corruption, and 
depravity, which must continue to deserve punishment, and also to 
work out sin deserving of still further punishment, unless some 
means of deliverance from this corruption shall arise. Eternal death, 
therefore, was not a penalty threatened against Adam but only a conse- 
quential penalty, resulting from what was threatened, and which, 
therefore, may be escaped through the deliverance in Christ. 

But eternal death is threatened against the finally impenitent 
of the present probation. The case of Adam, therefore, teaches 
us that it will assuredly be inflicted upon them. As God did not withhold 
the flood of corruption, and misery, which the corrupted nature has 
brought upon mankind, — the deliverance of any from which demanded 
the gift, and the suffering of His own Son — , we may be assured that, 
in like manner, He will inflexibly allow eternal punishment to come 
upon all against whom He has threatened it. 

(c.) When all suspicion, that God may intend something different 
from what He says in His threats to prevent sin, has been removed 
by perceiving that He has, to the letter, fulfilled His threat against 
Adam; we are prepared to give due weight to what He teaches about 
the possibility of future probation. 

To the question of one asking, '"Lord, are there few that be saved?" 
Christ replied, "Strive to enter in at the strait gate for many, I 
say unto you, shall seek to enter in and shall not be able."' Luke 
13:24. [See the context which shows reference to entrance into the 
kingdom in the future world]. The exhortation of Isaiah 55:6, "Seek 
ye the Lord while He may be found" implies a time when He may 
not be found. This exhortation has reference to the new and ever- 
lasting covenant of the sure mercies of David. [See verse 3]. How 
distinctly does the hortatory question of Heb. 2:1-3, apply here ; when 
we see, not merely how steadfast has been the word spoken by angels, 
but how literally fulfilled has been that uttered by God. Well may all 
ask, "How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?" The 
intimate connection between this passage, and the exhortation against 
the hardening of the heart in the present moment in Hebrews 3:7-11, 
are worthy of especial note, as well as the warning of verse 12, and the 
continued exhortations, and warnings, as far as', and beyond chap. 4:7, 



511 Abstract of Theology. 

which declares of the present period of probation, "He again defineth 
a certain day, saying in David, after so long a time, To day, as it hath 
been before said, To day, if ye shall hear His voice, harden not your 
hearts." [Canterbury Revision]. The declaration, "Behold now is the 
accepted time; behold now is the day of salvation," 2 Gor. 6=2, with 
the context, in like manner teaches that the present is the only period 
of probation. 

(d.) It may be questioned whether very many persons, who die 
impenitent, do not come under some one of the forms of sin which are 
specifically declared unpardonable, viz: wilful sins, Heb. 10:26; fall- 
ing away, Heb, 6:4-6; and the sin against the Holy Ghost, Matt. 
12:32. Certainly they all come under the declaration of Christ of 
"everlasting punishment." 

(e.) Nor should such passages be forgotten here as Luke 16:26, 
which teaches that, even in Hades, there is an impassable gulf between 
the righteous and the wicked; as John 8:21, in which Christ told the 
Pharisees that they could not come to him in the future world ; and 
Rev. 22:10.11, which teaches the continued unrighteous, and unholy 
condition, and conduct of the finally impenitent. The language of 
Christ about Judas, Matt. 26:24, is not quoted against all, because 
spoken oi one man only, though none can tell of how many others it 
may be true. But, there are doubtless very many liable to the sim- 
ilar woe denounced by Christ; that "it were better that a millstone 
were hanged about his neck and that he were drowned in the depth 
of the sea." Matt. 6:6; Mark 9=42; Luke 17:2. 

Second, the opposing theories. 

There are different forms in which the objections to the eternal pun- 
ishment of the wicked take the shape of doctrinal theories. 

(1.) The theory of annihilation. This does not deny that the 
punishment will be eternal; but only that there will be eternal con- 
scious pain. But it supposes, that the death of the sinner is absolute 
annihilation of being, and that in this sense only is it an eternal pun- 
ishment. This theory admits that the soul may suffer hereafter, for 
a longer, or shorter time, according to its deserts, but that there will 
be a time when existence will absolutely cease. The object of those 
who hold this theory, is not opposition to everlasting punishment, 
on the ground that God cannot justly punish so severely, or is too 
merciful to do so, but to escape the idea that sin and misery will 
always exist under the government of God. 



Abstract of Theology. 512 

This theory claims Scriptural support from the use of such words 
as speak of the condition of the wicked hereafter. One of these, is 
apolcia, translated sometimes "perdition," and sometimes "destruc- 
tion," in both the King James version and the Canterbury Revision. It 
appears, in reference to the future punishment of the wicked, among 
other places in John 17:12; Rom. 9:22; Phil. 3:19' Heb. 10:39; 2 
Pet. 3:7. 

But this word is very far from having the idea of annihilation. It 
is simply an equivalent to our English words destruction, loss, ruin, 
misfortune. In Matt. 26=8; Mark 14:4, it is used of the ointment 
poured upon Christ's head, and translated "waste." In all other pas- 
sages, it apparently refers to the future condition of the wicked. But 
these two show/that it does not mean annihilation, as indeed it does 
not elsewhere, either in Classic, or Hellenistic Greek. The verb apol- 
lumi, signifies no more than to destroy utterly, and is chiefly used 
in Homer for death inflicted in battle. [See Liddell and Scott's Lexi- 
con.] 

Another word is olethros. This occurs in connection with the pun- 
ishment of the wicked, in three of four places in the New Testament, 
viz: in 1 Thess. 5:3; 2 Thess. 1:9: and 1 Tim. 6:9. In none of these does 
it mean more than destruction, by which word it is rendered in both 
translations, not only in these places, but also in !l Cor. 5:5. This 
last place is that in which Paul directs the Corinthians to "deliver" 
the incestuous man "unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that 
the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." Surely no one 
imagines that the annihilation of the flesh is meant. 

Neither does this word mean any greater destruction than is in- 
volved in death. 

Another expression is "the second death ;" "And death and Hades 
were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, even the 
lake of fire." Rev. 20:14. [Canterbury Revision]. 

The lake of fire, the casting into which is here said to be the "sec- 
ond death," is expressly set forth as the place in which "the beast 
and the false prophet" are ; and in which they "shall be tormented day 
and night forever and ever," verse 10. There is certainly no annihi- 
lation here, for annihilation is inconsistent with torment continued 
forever. 

It may be stated in general, as to all the places which speak of the 
destruction and death of the soul, that reference is made to its spirit- 
ual loss of God's favour, and of holiness, and not to the extinction of 



513 Abstract of Theology. 

its being. This extinction would be contrary to the natural immor- 
tality conferred on spirit. It is not even true, so far as we can 
know, that even matter will ever be annihilated. What is called its 
destruction is simply such change of form as makes it unfit for the 
uses for which it had been so formed. Thus we speak of the utter 
destruction of a house, of machinery, of an animal, not meaning the 
annihilation of the matter which composed it ; but the destruction of 
the form in which that matter appeared, and which was essential for 
its use. In like manner, the death of the soul means its becoming 
unfit for the uses for which it was made ; viz : for happiness, for holi- 
ness, for the service of God, for the complacent love of God, and for the 
reflection of his image. Such an utter deprival of all the faculties 
for which the moral nature of man was made, may well be called its 
death, even its utter destruction. 

(2.) Restorationism. 

This is based upon three different grounds, each of which may be 
held separately, or any two, or all of them, together. Two of these 
have been sufficiently considered in the replies already made to the 
objections against the Scripture doctrine. 

One of these is that reformation of life will hereafter take place 
among some, at least, of the condemned, through natural ability, and 
sufficient grace, and the influences of the Spirit; and that thus these will 
be made holy, and therefore acceptible to God. 

The other is that the benefits of the work of Christ will, after 
this life, also, be imparted to men, and if this is done, salvation must 
ensue. 

It is to be noticed, however, that, when the objections, previously 
answered, are put in the form of a theory, the idea that there can be 
no everlasting punishment, is modified, so as to assert, only, that all 
but a few, will be saved. This is done to escape the cases of Judas 
and others already mentioned. But, in so doing, all the principles, 
upon which the possibility of such future salvation is based, have to 
be abandoned, and the theory becomes a mere supposition, without 
any support, presented in the face of positive declarations of the 
Word of God to the contrary. 

The third ground upon which Restorationism is imagined, is that 
the Scriptures speak of such restoration. The chief passage supposed 
to teach this is Acts 3:20.21, "that he may send the Christ who hath 
been appointed for you, even Jesus: whom the heaven must receive 
until the times of restoration of all things," [Canterbury Revision]. 



Abstract of Theology. 514 

The passage itself fixes the period of the time of restoration, which is 
at the second coming of the Lord. This precedes the judgment, and 
thus necessarily that of the restoration supposed by these parties. 

Another passage is Eph. 1:9.10, which speaks of God "having made 
known unto us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleas- 
ure, which He purposed in him unto a dispensation of the fulness of 
the times, to sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, 
and the things upon the earth." The fulness of times here is prob- 
ably the present dispensation, and has nothing to do with some new 
period. See Gal. 4:4, "when the fulness of the time came, God sent 
forth His Son, etc.," cf. Heb. 1:2; 9=10; 1 Pet. 1:20. So, again, in 
Col. 1:19.20, it is said to have been the good pleasure of the Father, 
"through him (Christ) to reconcile all things unto himself, having 
made peace through the blood of his cross; through him I say, 
whether things upon the earth, or things in the heavens." This 
place is also quoted to show that all will be finally saved. 

This use made of these two passages, Eph. 1:9.10 and Col. 1:19:20, 
to build up a doctrine, without other support from the Word of God, 
and so contrary to so much that is therein taught, is a warning against 
the pernicious manner in which isolated passages of the Word of God 
are separated from their contexts, and used to establish preconceived 
theories. Both of them occur in epistles written exclusively to pro- 
fessed Christians. The subject of both of them is the Church of 
Christ. The all things in Heaven, or Earth, mentioned in each of 
these epistles, are those only which are connected with the church. So 
far as persons are referred to, they are those who constitute "the 
whole family in Heaven and Earth'" Eph. 3=15, called also "the gen- 
eral assembly and church of the first born (first born ones)," Heb. 
12:22. They have, therefore, not the remotest reference to any future 
restoration to holiness, and happiness, and God, of those condemned 
at the judgment. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: July 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 






Cranberry Township PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 





009 087 181 A » Ef? 



ZJfcl 



KMCOBg^ 



i^ta 



'.Vilv.V<X'l^7 



Sffi 



ISfly^ 


ll'V-yj 


L^ 


L^jjLji 






ft& AWJ 







/ V '. V v y 



■/.w u; 



^V 



y/iHAwMi\§ 


w4^r« JimIm 



w^ 



^m£ 






w&itfatmHMMm iy-r 



K 



^ 



^M 



mwvvw 



